Anganu Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3881 Jhar

                                       1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                ----

W.P.(Cr.) No. 404 of 2022

----

      1.Anganu Oraon
      2.Panchu Oraon
      3.Kapil Dev Munda                              .... Petitioners
                               --   Versus      --
      The State of Jharkhand and Another             .... Respondents
                                     ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioners       :-     Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
       For the State             :-     Mrs.Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III
                                        Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-III
                                        ----

7/11.10.2023        This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

20.05.2022 and order dated 08.07.2022 passed in POCSO Case No.17 of

2018 corresponding to G.R. No.245 of 2018 in connection with P.S. Case

No.40 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge-

(POCSO)-cum- District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gumla.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim

Basanti Kumari now has become major and there is compromise between

the petitioners and said Basanti Kumari who is victim. The petitioner no.3

and said Basanti Kumari has compromised the matter and in view of that,

the petition was filed under section 311 Cr.P.C for recording the further

statement of victim which was rejected by the learned court. He submits

that in view of the compromise, section 311 of the Cr.P.C was required to

be allowed by the learned court as there is compromise between the

petitioner no.3 and Basanti Kumari.

3. The learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the

respondent no.2 and he submits that compromise is there and in view of

that, the victim is ready to give her statement under section 311 Cr.P.C.

4. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied in the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the

case of Mahammad Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar v. State of Karnataka,

2022 2 Crimes (HC) 512. Relying on this judgment, he submits that

identical was the situation in that case and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

has allowed the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C.

5. Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State submits that the case has been registered

under section 376 (D) of the IPC as well as sections 4 and 8 of the

Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. She submits that if she

has attained the majority now that has got no concern with the case in

hand as this is a case against the society. She submits that even it cannot

be said that after taking the statement whether the petitioner no.3 will

marry the victim or not. She relied in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681 and she refers to paragraph

nos.18 and 19 of the said judgment, which are as under:

"19. We are compelled to say so as such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the élan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility. It has to be kept in mind, as has been held in Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 7 SCC 77 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] that: (SCC pp. 88-89, para 27) "27. Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilised norm i.e. 'physical morality'. In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on the one hand, society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some perverted members of the same society dehumanise the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men."

18. The aforesaid view was expressed while dealing with the imposition of sentence. We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are

the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non- perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error."

6. It appears that the learned court has given anxious

consideration in passing the impugned orders and by reasoned order, the

petition filed by the petitioners under section 311 Cr.P.C has been

rejected. The learned court has rightly relied on section 33 (5) of

Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act considering

that aspect of the matter, the said impugned orders have been passed. In

the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." (2012) 10 SCC

303, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offense like murder, rape and dacoity etc

cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family

members and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are

not private in nature and have a serious impact on society and in view of

that, even the compromise between the petitioner no.3 and the victim

namely, Basanti Kumari, and offence under section 376(D) read with

section 4 and 8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act are such in nature, only to make the way of acquittal of the accused

by way of further recording the statement under section 311 Cr.P.C of the

victim will amount to allow the acquittal of the culprit. In the judgment

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners of the Karnataka High

Court, the victim and the accused were the relative and considering that

aspect of the matter that order has been passed.

7. In view of the above and considering the judgment of

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal(supra) relied by the

respondent State and further considering the reasons assigned in the two

orders, particularly, considering section 33 (5) of the said Act, the Court

comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

No case of interference is made out.

8. W.P.(Cr.) No. 404 of 2022 is dismissed.

9. Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,