Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms. H vs Punjab State Legal Services Authority ... on 4 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229
CWP-9518-2022
Date of decision: 04.09.2024
MS. H
......Petitioner
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present :- Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate for
Mr. G. S. Manku, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankit Bhinchar, Advocate for
Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached to this Court challenging the
order dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the application of the petitioner dated
27.01.2022 seeking compensation under "Compensation Scheme for Women
Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018" was disposed of as
not maintainable.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that a scheme known as "Compensation Scheme for Women
Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018" has been framed
by the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi and on directions of
the Apex Court, a "Women Victim Compensation Fund" is maintained by
the State Government from which compensation as directed by State Legal
Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority into be paid to the
victims of sexual assault and other crimes or their dependant.
3. The petitioner is a victim of sexual assault resulting in
registration of case FIR No. 63 dated 15.07.2012 for offence under Sections
376, 363, 366-A/368/120-B IPC, where the accused was convicted vide
judgment dated 22.07.2021 for offences under Section 376/363,366-A/368
IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for
offence under Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years
for offence under Section 363 and Section 368 IPC and imprisonment for a
period of five years for offence under Section 366-A of the IPC and in
default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and
three months under different offence and all the sentences are ordered to be
run concurrently. Another FIR No. 69 dated 29.06.2013 was also registered
and a charge-sheet had been filed against Sukhdev Singh son of Sucha Singh
resident of village Umarpur, Batala in relation to the commission of the
offence of rape against the petitioner. Vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 22.07.2021, the accused has been held guilty for offences
under Sections 363/367/368/506 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
imprisonment for a period of three years each in different offences and for a
period of one year for offence under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were
to run concurrently.
4. He contends that the petitioner had submitted an application for
grant of compensation before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurdaspur, however, the said application was dismissed on the ground that
the provisions of the Chapter 2 do not apply to the minor victims under the
POCSO Act, 2012 since the special provision has been prescribed under
Section 33 (8) of the POCSO Act, 2012 for grant of compensation and also
that the Court had become functus offico after passing of the judgment on
22.07.2021 and does not have any authority to take a decision with respect to
grant of compensation.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
compensation had been declined to the petitioner erroneously and without
taking into consideration the facts essential to the claim. He contends that
the case was neither registered for offences under the POCSO Act nor any
person has been convicted of the same. He contends that he is also not
seeking a compensation in relation to the provisions of the POCSO Act and
the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, the said foundation of the impugned
order was bad, in the absence of any such claim being lodged by the
applicant. He contends that the compensation was being asked for on
account of initiation of proceedings and conviction of the accused for sexual
offences not only under Section 376/363/366-A and 368 but also for
offences under Sections 363, 367, 368 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
that the District Legal Services Authority was required to satisfy itself with
respect to the facts and to examine the case of the petitioner for being
considered for grant of compensation. The said application was however
wrongly forwarded by the Legal Services Authorities to the trial Court
wherein the impugned order was passed. He contends that powers had been
conferred upon the Legal Service Authority for taking a decision in view of
Clause 9 of the said compensation scheme and to grant compensation.
Hence, it was not necessary for the Legal Service Authority to refer the case
of the petitioner to the trial Court for determination of compensation under
Section 357 Cr.P.C and that the Legal Service Authority was in itself
competent to examine the entitlement of the petitioner, if any, to the relief of
compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme of 2018. He contends
that in not exercising its jurisdiction, the respondent-Legal Service Authority
has abdicated its duties thus causing prejudice to the petitioner.
6. Counsel for the respondent-Legal Service Authorities has
merely reiterated the factum of receipt of the application and having
forwarded the same to the Additional Sessions Judge-trial Court, Gurdaspur
for determination of compensation under Section 357 Cr. P.C. and contends
that the same having been declined, there was no occasion for the Legal
Service Authority to award any compensation. It is, however, not disputed
that no decision had been taken by the District Legal Service Authorities for
grant of compensation to the petitioner in offences for which the accused
stands convicted.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone
through the documents available on record.
8. Undisputedly a victim of sexual offences is entitled to be
compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme. The Legal Services
Authority has been vested with a power to determine compensation, on a
claim so made but the said exercise was not undertaken by it. The trial Court
has not dismissed the application on merits but has done so on the ground of
maintainability. The other reasons which have been given are also factually
incorrect and not borne out from the record. In any case, where the Court
holds that it is functus officio and can't take cognizance, it is an issue of
maintainability and Court ought not go into any other merit.
9. The compensation scheme is a benevolent scheme aimed for
rehabilitation and is not a source of further harassment. The claim could
have been thus considered by the District Legal Service Authority at its own
level as well.
10. Needless to mention that even if the accused has not been
convicted for commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, the same
cannot be the basis to decline the benefit which are otherwise admissible to
the petitioner under the scheme and for the offences to which the petitioner
had been subjected.
11. Besides, the District Legal Service Authority itself sent the
issue to the trial Court and never referred the matter to the Special Court
under the POCSO Act. It can not thus contend that only the POCSO Court is
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115724
competent to award compensation even when no charge has been framed or
trial conducted under the POCSO Act. The technicalities are now being used
as a stumbling block against the victim. The same would not be a just and
proper thing to do in the facts of the present case.
12. I find that the Legal Service Authority has failed to examine the
claim of the petitioner in light of the object of the Victim Compensation
Policy of 2018. In the event of the trial Court failing to look into the claim or
not considering the same on account of having become functus offico, the
same could not operate as a bar against the District Legal Service
Authorities to exercise its jurisdiction and to ascertain the entitlement of the
victim compensation, as per its own satisfaction.
13. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a
direction to the District Legal Service Authorities to consider the claim of
the petitioner for grant of compensation under the Victim Compensation
Policy of 2018 and in the event of the petitioner being found entitled to
compensation thereunder, the same to be released expeditiously in her
favour and preferably within a period of three months from receipt of
certified copy of this order.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
