Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Karanveer) For The Offence on 22 February, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
Compounding Application No. 01 of 2024
In
C 482 No. 261 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
4. Applicant is facing trial in Special Sessions Trial
No. 498 of 2022 (State Vs. Karanveer) for the offence
punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC read
with Section 5 /6 of the POCSO Act, arising out of FIR
No. 124 of 2021, police station - Transit Camp, District
- Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Special
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar.
5. Present application has been preferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. along with compounding
application, which is supported with the affidavit of
applicant and respondents no. 2 and 3.
6. Applicant and respondents no. 2 and 3 are
present in person and they are duly identified by their
respective counsel.
7. An FIR was lodged on 23.04.2021 by respondent
no. 2, who is father of respondent no. 3 whereby
applicant has been implicated for the offence
punishable under Section 363 IPC. After investigation
charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant for
the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (3)
IPC and under Section 5 / 6 of the POCSO Act.
8. It is contended in the compounding application
that the applicant married with respondent no. 3 on
22.01.2021 and their marriage was registered on
06.02.2024, which is brought on record by Annexure
No. 6 to the application. It is further contended that out
of the wedlock, a child was born on 26.02.2022 and both
applicant and respondent no. 3 are living happily.
9. No doubt offence is serious in nature but this
aspect cannot be ignored that now, present applicant is
married with the victim. This fact also cannot be over
looked that both applicant and victim have a child of
one year, therefore, if these proceedings are permitted
to continue future of applicant, victim and their child
will be spoiled.
10. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
that offences for which applicant is facing trial
admittedly are not compoundable but looking into the
fact that both are married and they have one year old
child, therefore, for all purposes, continuation of these
proceedings will certainly spoil the future of applicant,
victim and their minor child. Therefore, continuation of
these proceedings will be a futile exercise.
11. Learned counsels for both the parties have placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by Bombay High
Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court.
12. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Shakil Ahmed Shaikh and Another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, decided on 23.03.2023, in
paragraph 7 observed that, "if the victim attains the age
of majority after lodging of the report and they happily
marry and reside under one shelter and leading
peaceful life as a husband and wife, therefore, the
continuity of the proceedings would be nothing but a
futile exercise." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
13. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of
Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of H.P. decided 08.12.2023 in
paragraph 46 has held as under:
"46. This Court on the basis of the material placed on record
has satisfied itself that the child victim and her family
members have settled the dispute and the victim is now
leading a happy and peaceful married life and therefore,
allowing the prosecution to continue in such a case would
only result in disturbance in their happy family life and ends
of justice in such circumstances would demand that the
parties be allowed to compromise. We are further satisfied
that such compromise is not a camouflage to escape
punishment and the consent given by the victim for
compromise is voluntarily. Lastly, and more importantly, the
Court is satisfied after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings
would promote justice for victim and continuance of the
proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered
accordingly."
14. In view of this and looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case that applicant and victim are
now married and they have minor child, the instant
compounding application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, compounding application is allowed.
15. Entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.
498of 2022 (State Vs. Karanveer) for the offence
punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC read
with Section 5 /6 of the POCSO Act, arising out of FIR
No. 124 of 2021, police station - Transit Camp, District
- Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Special
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar
are quashed.
16. C482 application stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
22.02.2024
SKS
