Bengaluru (Aryavarth): The Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings of Case No. 294 of 2021 (State vs. Fakre Alam), arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The decision was made by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. in response to an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the applicant, Fakre Alam, also known as Shozil.
The application sought the quashing of the charge sheet dated 25.9.2016, cognizance order dated 10.2.2017, and non-bailable warrant dated 10.5.2022, along with the entire proceedings of the aforementioned case. Counsel for the applicant, Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, argued that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., had willingly married the applicant and was residing with him as his wife. Moreover, a compromise had been reached between the parties involved, indicating that the victim and the applicant had been living as husband and wife. It was also emphasized that the victim's age was confirmed to be above 18 years according to medical examination reports.
Upon considering the arguments put forth, the Court directed the lower court to verify the compromise between the parties. Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Bareilly, subsequently verified the compromise in Special Criminal Case No. 294 of 2021 through an order dated 24.5.2023. This order, along with a second supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant on 30.5.2023, was presented before the Court. The pivotal issue at hand was whether the charges under Section 376 of the IPC and the POCSO Act could be quashed based on the compromise.
The Court referred to precedents set by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases. It was observed that when a case is established based on the victim's statement, proceedings under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the victim and the accused. Offenses under the POCSO Act are considered offenses against society. However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that offenses under special statutes, including the SC/ST Act, can be quashed on the basis of compromise in certain cases during the pendency of trial or appeal.
The Court acknowledged that while the Cr.P.C. does not explicitly allow for compounding offenses other than those mentioned in Section 320, there may still be cases where the victim is willing to forgive the accused's actions, even if the charge is non-compoundable. In such instances, the Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. The Court emphasized that it should adopt a holistic approach, taking into account the nature and impact of the offense on society, the seriousness of any injuries, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident.
Based on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the victim's age, which was confirmed to be above 18 years, the Court found that no case under the POCSO Act had been made out. The victim stated that she willingly married the applicant on 10.7.2014. The Court also cited a recent judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in which proceedings under the POCSO Act were quashed after the victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., stated that no offense had been committed.
Additionally, it was noted that no injuries were found during the medical examination, and the victim's mother had filed the false case to extort money from the applicant. In light of these facts, the Court opined that the filing of the charge sheet against the applicant under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act was incorrect. The Court stressed that the police should not file charge sheets routinely without considering the material collected during the investigation.
Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings of Case No. 294 of 2021 (State vs. Fakre Alam), which arose out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The application filed by the applicant was allowed, and the order was issued on 6.6.2023.
Get our Digital Edition at Rs 1100 per year. 51% used for Gau Seva, 49% used for our operations. Subscribe here - http://pages.razorpay.com/TAVEDE
