Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court GST Act Does Not Prima Facie Prohibit Consolidated Show-Cause Notices For Multiple Years: Bombay HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench 90% Burn Injuries No Bar To Making Statement; Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction If Found Truthful: Madhya Pradesh 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