Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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