LI Network
Published on: 08 April 2023 at 13:13 IST
Allahabad HC while quashing a case under Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act, said, on the basis of the compromise entered between parties is not legally permissible.
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava was dealing with the application filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime registered under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that a false FIR came to be lodged against the accused/applicants, who are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.
It was further argued that the accused/ applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, victim have married and are living happily together as husband and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.
A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the victim was a child on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no compromise between such victim and the accused/ applicants is permissible in law. Therefore, the application is misconceived, which is liable to be dismissed.
The issue for consideration before the bench was:
Whether the proceedings against the applicant could be quashed or not?
The bench referred to the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) where it was stated that The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.
Further, the High Court referred to the case of Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that the ground that “no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case” cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offence alleged.
Case: Pravin Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 2941 of 2023