Allahabad High Court
Arjun vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108894
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18516 of 2023
Applicant :- Arjun
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Gangwar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 who has filed his vakalatnama filed 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 applicant Arjun with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly on charge sheet dated 31.07.2022 bearing charge sheet No. 209 of 2022 registered as Case No. 221 of 2022 (State Vs. Arjun Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)N, 376(3) I.P.C. and 4 (2)/5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly including the entire proceedings of the said case 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 a First Information Report was lodged on 30.05.2022 as Case Crime No. 191 of 2022, under Section 363 IPC against the said applicant. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 209 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)N, 376(3) I.P.C. and 4(2)/5L/6 of POCSO Act was filed against him on which the trial court took cognizance vide order dated 05.08.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 her own sweet will before the trial court on05.05.2023, copy of the said affidavit has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 11 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 applicant and has stated in the said compromise that there is no grievance left so she does not want to pursue the matter and as such the proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise. Annexure no. 11 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 applicant 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 applicant 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
11. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (decided on 04.02.2022) and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 8905/2022 ; Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another), subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 18.5.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
