'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court

Proceedings Under POCSO Act Can Not be Quashed  On Compromise – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, a POCSO Act offence, which is an unique statute, cannot be overturned on the grounds of an agreement or marriage between the accuser and the prosecutor.

High Court held  that the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC offences would not be lessened by the accused's future marriage to the prosecutrix/victim.

This Punjab and Haryana High Court comment gains weight in light of recent POCSO Act Case dismissals by other High Courts throughout the nation based on the victim and accused's compromise or marriage.

Sections 363, 376, and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 4 of the 2012 Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, were used to charge the accused, Nardeep Singh Cheema. He allegedly seduced a young girl and married her afterward.

He then filed the Quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC in an effort to overturn the FIR. Additionally, he included a deed with his plea that showed the little girl and her father, the complainant, had both signed affidavits that showed the parties had reached an agreement.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the married pair was residing together and that their recorded statements in favour of the settlement.

The victim was admittedly a kid when she was lured, and the state countered that she had been recovered from the accused petitioner's custody and that material on record demonstrates that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her.

Due to this, the Court dismissed the plea but refused to dismiss the case.

Navdeep Singh Cheema

vs 

State of Punjab and others 

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/nardeep-singh-cheema-navdeep-singh-cheema-v-state-of-punjab-and-others-crm-m-2270-2020-punjab-and-haryana-high-court-436751.pdf"]

Latest Legal News