Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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