This court quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 85 of 2018 involving provisions of IPC and POCSO Act. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing a compromise between the parties and invoking Supreme Court precedents, resulting in the dismissal of the proceedings.
Proceedings in Special Case No. 85 of 2018 are hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24547 of 2019
Applicant :- Amjad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.3.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Special Case No. 85 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, 8th, Saharanpur.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 9 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.
Azhar Hussain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. Nos.2 & 3 and has filed short counter affidavit stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case. The applicant has married the opposite party No. 3, who is daughter of opposite party No.2.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties
even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed .
Order Date :- 27.6.2019 Ruchi Agrahari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 376 IPC and POCSO Act can be quashed based on a compromise between the parties despite the nature of offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶8
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶8
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶8
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherExplained¶15
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amjad
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
