Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Tripathi And Another vs State Of U.P. on 1 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44786
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37383 of 2024
Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Tripathi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants prayed for permission of the Court to amend the prayer clause of this application.
2. Prayer so made is allowed.
3. Let necessary amendments be carried out by learned counsel for applicants during course of the day.
4. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.
5. By way of filing the present application, applicants are seeking quashing of order dated 12.09.2024 rejecting the compromise dated 09.09.2024 preferred in S.T. No.962 of 2017 (State vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathi), arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2017, under Section 354, 354-A, 509, 323, 506 IPC and Section 9/10 POCSO Act, P.S. Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur as well as proceedings of the said case, pending the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Court No.2, Gorakhpur.
6. While challenging order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Court No.2, Gorakhpur, learned counsel for applicants submitted that through the said order, compromise application dated 09.09.2024 jointly preferred by both the applicants who are father and daughter, has been rejected and at present, applicant no.2 has already been married which was solemnized and arranged by applicant no.1 himself. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that applicant no.2 is leading her peaceful life with her husband without having any differences with her father (applicant no.2). Learned counsel for applicants sought attention of the Court towards basis of rejection of compromise application vide order dated 12.09.2024 and submitted that on that very date, applicant no.2 was not present in the concerned court but no finding has been returned by learned court concerned that the compromise which was preferred by both the applicants, was jointly signed by them. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that before rejecting the compromise application, it was the duty of learned court concerned to call upon respondent no.2 for verifying the statement whatsoever has been made in the compromise application itself but without doing so, learned court concerned rejected the same vide order dated 12.09.2024 and as such, same may be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and submitted that once the entire evidence has already been taken on record along with statement recorded at the behest of applicant no.2 herself, there was no occasion arisen for entertaining the compromise between victim and accused. Learned AGA further submitted that the specific finding has been recorded by learned court concerned while passing the impugned order that it is nothing but tactics to delay the proceedings and the matter which has been taken up by learned court concerned, is of old in nature and as such, order dated 12.09.2024 is not containing any infirmity as stated by learned cousnel for applicants.
8. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties, one thing is crystal clear that compromise has been jointly signed and submitted before learned court concerned by victim and accused who are father and daughter in relation but the same was rejected in the absence of applicant no.2 without verifying the said compromise. It is also apparent from the records that accused had been informant in Case Crime No.222 of 2017 and as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tanveer Aquil Vs. State of M.P. and another [1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 63], it has been held as under:-
"...However we think it proper to direct trial court to consider the genuineness of the compromise. The trial court will verify whether the statements made in the compromise application are correct.."
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Gian Singh Versus State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S. Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another [2014 (6) SCC 466] has held that the proceedings can be quashed even in the cases involving non-cognizable and non-compoundable offences.
10. In the case in hand, it is not disputed by either of the parties that applicant no.2 was not present on dated 12.09.2024 before learned court concerned but at the same time, argument raised by learned counsel for applicants has to be given credence that for verification of compromise dated 09.09.2024, opportunity for appearance was to be provided in favour of applicant no.2 but the same has not been extended by learned court concerned.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Court No.2, Gorakhpur in S.T. No.962 of 2017 (State vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathi), is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned for verifying the said compromise in presence of both the parties (accused and victim) who jointly preferred the instant application being applicant no.1 and 2 and taking fresh decision over the same as per law.
12. The abovementioned exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before learned court concerned.
13. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava ,J.)
