Allowed

Durgesh Alias Laxman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2023A482/32589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC. Considering the parties married the victim and entered a verified compromise, the Court held no useful purpose was served by continuing the trial and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Special Trial No.31 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act are quashed.

Durgesh Alias Laxman and Another Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32589 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Durgesh Alias Laxman And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anuj Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.31 of 2017 (State v. Durgesh @ Laxman & Ors.), arising out of Crime No.318 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictFatehpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur.

¶7

On 21.11.2022, the Court has passed following order:

¶8

"Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma has filed power on behalf of the informant which is taken on record. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri S.M. Jafer Husain, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Dr. S.D. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.31 of 2017 (State v. Durgesh @ Laxman & Ors.), pending in the court of Additional Sessions Juge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur arising out of Crime No. 318 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur as well as charge-sheet dated 4.2.2016 & Cognizance order dated 22.3.2017.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.1 and victim of the case i.e. daughter of the opposite party no.2 have performed their marriage and they are at present residing as husband and wife. It is next submitted that father of the victim is having no objection if proceeding pending against

¶12

the applicants is quashed as his daughter is residing with applicant no.1 as his wife. He further submitted that both applicant no.1 and victim are ready to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise executed between them either on the date fixed by this Court or by the lower court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded to the fact that applicant no.1 and victim of this case have solemnized their marriage and are now residing as husband and wife and he has no objection if proceeding pending against applicant be quashed.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact the applicant no.1 and victim are residing as husband and wife.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

¶16

Although the present case relates to the POCSO Act but as victim of the case who is now a major lady is at present residing with the applicant no.1 as his wife and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she has performed marriage with applicant no.1 and wants to reside with applicant no.1, therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances, it is directed that applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 and victim shall appear before the court below for verification of the compromise within two weeks from today. If within two weeks from today, applicant no.1 opposite party no.2 and victim will appear before the court below and move an application for verification of their compromise, then court below shall verify the settlement/compromise alleged to have been executed between them, in accordance with law, and transmit its report to this Court.

¶17

List this case on 09.01.2023.

¶18

Office shall transmit the report, if received from the court below after verification, to this Court.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings pending against the applicants in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.

¶20

When the case will be listed next the name of Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2."

¶21

Pursuant to the above order, the learned Additional Sessions

¶22

Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur vide order dated 09.12.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur vide order dated 09.12.2022 and the compromise have been placed alongwith the order-sheet.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶24

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶25

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶26

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶27

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶28

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶29

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶30

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶31

In the aforesaid judgments, 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. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶32

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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶33

Accordingly, the proceeding of Special Trial No.31 of 2017 (State v. Durgesh @ Laxman & Ors.), arising out of Crime No.

¶34

318 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictFatehpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur are hereby quashed.

¶35

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Order Date :- 21.3.2023 Anurag

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durgesh Alias Laxman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Alias Laxman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Dwivedi @ Saurabh Kumar Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Idrees and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahdev Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harkesh Vs State of U.P. and Another