The Delhi High Court pronounced in a ruling that offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act are not private in nature; the Court thus refused to quash an FIR registered in spite of the fact that the parties have made a private settlement. Section 377 IPC deals with unnatural sexual offences and Section 4 POSCO Act deals with penetrative sexual assault.
Background of the Case
In the present case, the alleged offender was accused of sodomising a seven year old boy. After an FIR was registered, on the completion of investigation, the Police filed a final report stating that there was enough material to proceed against the petitioner for offences under Section 377 IPC and Section 4, POSCO Act.
However, due to intervention of elders of the society and friends, parties made a personal settlement to put an end to the disputes and differences. The accused instituted a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non- compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise, the High Court should scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement. In the words of the Court:
“The High Court cannot mechanically quash FIRs for non- compoundable offences by exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC just because parties have decided to bury their hatchets. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be distinguished on the powers which lies on the court to compound the offences compoundable under Section 320 of the Code”.
“The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave. The POSCO Act was enacted only because sexual offences against children were not being adequately addressed by the existing laws and the purpose of the Act was to provide protection to children from sexual assault and sexual harassment and for safeguarding the interest and well being for children”.
“An offence under Section 377 IPC committed on a child of seven years or an offence under Section 4 of the POSCO Act shows the mental depravity of the offender and cannot be said to be private in nature”. Thus the Court refused to quash the FIR.
Case Details
Before: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sunil Raikwar v. State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
