Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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