Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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