Allahabad High Court
Vikash Chaube And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100586
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17283 of 2023
Applicant :- Vikash Chaube And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neelesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neelesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 who has filed a short counter affidavit along with his vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. The present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Vikash Chaube and Raj Kumar Pandey with the prayer to allow this application and quash the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 23 of 2020 (Chavinath Chaubey @ Changaur Chabuey Vs. Vikash Chaubey and another) and summoning order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Illia, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chandauli, on the basis of compromise and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case, during the pendency of the present application.
4. The facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants before the concerned trial court which was treated as a complaint after which the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses namely Neha @ Sandhya and Ghanshyam Chaubey were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. after which the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 09.12.2021 to face trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that during pendency of the trial the parties have entered into compromise and the opposite party no. 2 filed a compromise affidavit out of his own sweet will before the trial court on 28.04.2023, copy of the said affidavit has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 6 to the affidavit. It is argued that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own sweet will and the opposite party no. 2 has settled the dispute with the applicants and has stated in the said compromise that there is no grievance left so he does not want to pursue the matter and as such the proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise. Annexure no. 6 being the application and the alleged compromise affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is argued that as such the impugned proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing. It is argued that the proceedings in the matter are of offences which are not compoundable. Learned State counsel has placed before the Court the judgement dated 29.3.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2941 of 2023: Pravin Kumar [email protected] Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which the said issue was taken up and the Court has held that since the case is under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 POCSO Act are non-compoundable hence compounding on the basis of compromise entered into between the accused and the complainant is not legally permissible and has thus dismissed the same. Identically other co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8514 of 2023 (Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another) has also held that the criminal proceedings under Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the accused and the victim. Further this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7087 of 2023 (Akash Maurya vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 18.4.2023, while relying upon the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court also has held that the cases pertains to sexual offence cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are accused in PST No. 1291 of 2021 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2021, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, quashing of the proceedings is being prayed on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into between the first informant and the applicants who are accused. The victim of the incident who is the daughter of the first informant is not a party to the said compromise. As per the judgement dated 29.3.2023 rendered in the case of Pravin Kumar [email protected] Kumar and 2 others (Supra), the Court has reiterated the law that quashing of proceedings of a case on the basis of compromise in non-compoundable offence is not legally permissible. Identically in the case of Om Prakash (Supra) and Akash Maurya (Supra) it has been held that the case pertains to sexual offence cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
8. Looking to the law on the subject and the facts of the case this Court does not find it to be a fit case for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of compromise and as such the present application is dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10. Office is directed to communicate this order to concerned trial court within two weeks.
Order Date :- 10.5.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
