Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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