Unknown vs Santosh Paswan And
2024 Latest Caselaw 1093 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Santosh Paswan And on 6 June, 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. 982 of 2024
                                      Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Ms. Shruti Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent no. 1.

3. Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

4. The present C482 application has been moved along with the compounding application supported with the affidavits of the applicants and the respondent no. 2.

5. All the applicants are present in court and they are identified by their counsel. Respondent no. 2 - victim is also present through video conferencing and she is also identified by her counsel.

6. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are real uncle and aunty of applicant no. 1. Present applicants are facing the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 363, 368, 366A, 376 IPC read with Section 16/17 of POCSO Act in Special Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2021 (State vs. Santosh Paswan and Others) pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court/Special Sessions Court, POCSO, Dehradun.

7. This Court interacted with respondent no. 2 / victim, who submitted that her date of birth is 13.11.2003 and she is doing graduation. The main ground in the compounding application is that applicant no. 1 married with the respondent no. 2 on 13.12.2023 at Shri Sai Baba Mandir, 189 Rajpur Road, Dehradun, and the said marriage is also registered in the office of Registrar, Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, Dehradun, on 10.04.2024 (a copy of which is also enclosed as Annexure-8). It is also informed to this Court that at the time of the incident the respondent no. 2 victim was minor, but at the time of marriage, she was major.

8. The complainant is the father of the respondent no. 2, who is not the party here and on interaction the respondent no. 2 has informed to this court that her parents are not agreeable for this marriage, but she married with the applicant no. 1 with her own will and she is not under any compulsion and she is major and she is living happily with the applicant no. 1.

9. She further submits that she does not want to proceed with this criminal proceeding since she is married with applicant no. 1 and if such, proceeding is permitted to continue it will spoil her family life.

10. Learned counsels for both the parties have placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court.

11. 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 as under:

"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.

12. 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."

13. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. G.S. Sandhu submits that admittedly, the allegations are serious in nature, but since the applicant no. 1 married with respondent no. 2 /victim and they are living happily, so continuation of these proceedings will amount to be a futile exercise and no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial.

14. After taking into consideration all these aspects particularly that the applicant no. 1 married with respondent no. 2 and their marriage is registered and they are living happily, there is no useful purpose to continue the proceedings and, therefore, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed.

15. Entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2021 'State vs. Santosh Paswan and Others' pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Sessions Judge, POCSO, Dehradun are quashed.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.06.2024 PR