Prosecution Of Accused Facing Trial Under POCSO Act Cannot Be Quashed Based On Compromise: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court while dismissing an application for quashing a rape case held that the prosecution of an accused facing trial under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between parties.
The Court pointed out that the power under Section 482 of CrPC should not be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences were not private in nature and had a serious impact on society.
similarly, for an offence alleged to have been committed under a "Special Statute" like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed, “Where the prosecutrix is a minor below 18 years of age, then her consent would be immaterial. When an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise.”
Sr. Advocate Prem Prakash represented the applicant, while GA Ramesh Kumar appeared for the opposite party.
The accused filed an application to set aside the cognizance and summoning order issued by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act. The application challenged the order concerning offences under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Additionally, the accused sought the quashing of the charge sheet and all further criminal proceedings related to the mentioned charges.
The accused raised a single ground in the application, contending that subsequent to the filing of the FIR, the completion of the investigation, and the summoning, a compromise was reached between the accused and the victim. Based on this compromise deed entered into between the parties, the accused argued for the quashing of the proceedings against him.
“Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings,” the Court remarked.
The Court held that “where the applicant is facing Trial for an offence punishable under the Special Statute, then the prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:56128)
Appearance:
Applicant: Sr. Advocate Prem Prakash; Advocate Doodh Nath Yadav
Opposite Party: GA Ramesh Kumar and Bade Lal Bind
