Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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