Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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