Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings Under POCSO Act Based on Victim’s Statement, Citing Compromise and Age Confirmation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, headed by Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., has quashed the proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act in a case where the victim’s statement and medical examination confirmed her age above 18 years. The court considered the compromise between the victim and the accused, highlighting that the offense under the POCSO Act is against society. The judgment, delivered on 6th June 2023, sets a precedent by analyzing various factors and exercising inherent powers to ensure justice.

The court, in its detailed order, emphasized the importance of a holistic approach when dealing with cases of sexual offenses. It stated, “Though the High Court should not normally interfere with the criminal proceeding involving sexual offense against women and children only on the basis of ground of settlement, however, it is not completely foreclosed in exercising its extraordinary power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceeding.”

The case in question involved an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash a charge sheet, cognizance order, non-bailable warrant, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 294 of 2021. The applicant, Fakre Alam, argued that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., had stated that she willingly married him and had been residing with him as his wife. Furthermore, a compromise had been reached between the parties.

Taking cognizance of the victim’s statement and the verification of the compromise, the court examined the age of the victim and the nature of the offense. It observed, “Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act clearly defines the child who is below the age of 18 years, but from the material available on record it appears that victim is above 18 years then no case under POCSO Act is made out.” The court also noted that the victim had explicitly stated that the applicant had not committed any sexual offense against her and that the charge sheet filed against him was incorrect.

Highlighting the role of the court in cases involving offenses against society, the court referred to precedents from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. It explained, “Offenses against society should not be quashed on the basis of compromise or weak evidence... However, in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court observed that the offense under special statute including SC/ST Act, though the offense is against society, can also be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in certain cases on the basis of compromise.”

The court’s decision to quash the proceedings was based on the lack of evidence supporting the offense under the POCSO Act, the victim’s statement confirming her consent, and the improper filing of the charge sheet. The judgment serves as a reminder that the court must consider various factors while exercising its inherent powers to ensure justice and fairness.

This ruling by the Allahabad High Court reinforces the need for a nuanced approach in cases involving sexual offenses, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case, and the importance of upholding the rights of victims and the principles of justice.

Date of Decision: 6th June 2023

Fakre Alam @ Shozil VS State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Latest Legal News