Criminal proceedings under S. 376 IPC and POCSO cannot be quashed based on compromise entered between accused and victim, Allahabad High Court reiterates

Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire proceedings for offences under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 4 POCSO Act, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J. said that quashing of a case under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 3 and Section 4 POCSO Act based on compromise entered between the accused and the victim, is not legally permissible. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application.

The accused submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the accused and victim have settled their dispute amicably. The accused and the victim have married and are living happily together as husband and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned criminal proceeding pending against the accused.

The State submitted that the victim was a child on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no compromise between such victim and the accused is permissible in law.

The Court said that it is no doubt true that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases. It was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.

The Court took note of Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 630, wherein it was held that “the ground that ‘no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case’ cannot be a good ground or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings, when a clear case was made out for the offence alleged” and of Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, wherein it was held that “in exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC., the Court should not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint/FIR. except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage itself might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice.”

Further, the Court took note of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was held that the matter under Section 376 I.P.C. is also such an offence, which, though committed in respect of a particular victim, cannot be termed to be a private dispute between the parties. It has serious adverse societal effects. Therefore, any proceeding on the basis of alleged compromise of the accused vis-a-vis the victim cannot be quashed.

Placing reliance on Om Prakash v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 93, wherein it was held that the criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on a compromise entered between the accused and the victim.

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, the Court said that quashing of a case under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 3 and Section 4 POCSO Act based on compromise entered between the accused and the victim, is not legally permissible. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application.

[Pravin Kumar Singh v State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 131, decided on 29-03-2023]

Also Read: Offences under POCSO are not compoundable: Allahabad HC | SCC BLOG (scconline.com)

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Ashish Kumar Gupta;

Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate.