TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Compromise Cannot Be a Ground for Quashing Serious Offences Like Rape under POCSO Act:  Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified that compromise between the victim and the accused cannot be a basis for quashing serious offences such as rape, especially under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The judgment emphasizes the non-compoundable nature of such offences, even in cases where a settlement is reached post the alleged commission of the crime.

 

The case (Application U/S 482 No. – 9169 of 2024) involved an application for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., concerning offences under Sections 376, 313 IPC and 3, 4 of the  POCSO Act. The applicant, Sanjeev Kumar, sought to quash the cognizance order and charge sheet on the ground that a compromise was reached with the victim post the lodging of FIR and summoning by the trial court.

Heinous and Serious Offences: The Court observed that offences like rape have a profound impact on society and are not private in nature. As per Supreme Court precedents, such offences, especially under special statutes like POCSO, should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

Age and Consent of Victim: In cases under the POCSO Act, the age and consent of the victim are immaterial. The Court highlighted that the victim being a minor, her consent at the time of the alleged incident or for compromise does not hold legal significance.

Special Statute Consideration: The Court stressed that the POCSO Act is a special statute, and offences under it are not subject to quashing based on compromise. The sanctity and objective of the Act in protecting children from sexual offences cannot be undermined.

Timing of Settlement: The Court noted the importance of the timing of the settlement. It held that compromise reached at an advanced stage of prosecution, where evidence is nearly complete or a conviction is recorded, cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.

Public Interest and Justice: Upholding the principles of justice, the Court mentioned that quashing such serious offences merely on compromise would be against public interest and the dignity of victims.

 The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, holding that the nature of the offences and the special provisions of the POCSO Act do not allow for quashing of proceedings based on a compromise.

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2024.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

 

Latest Legal News