Court refused to quash summons in a POCSO and IPC case alleging assault on minors, holding that offences against society involving minors cannot be compromised despite allegations of settlement between parties.
Refusal to quash the summoning order and entire proceedings in the case involving molestation of minors.
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. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42415 of 2022
Applicant :- Aakil And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Nasir
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Maimuna, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Nasir, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No.68/2022 (Nighat Khan vs. Aakil and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 323, 452, 354B, 392, 376/511, 504, 506 IPC and Section 18 of POCSO Act 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Aligarh.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 (sister-in-law of the victim) against as many as six persons alleging therein that on 25.03.2022, there was a marriage function going on at J.K. Lodge. On the same day at about 10:30, the informant and her 12 years sister-in-law Alfisha and 14 years Mahak were siting in a room wherein they were changing their clothes for being ready to attend the marriage ceremony, which was happening in the family of the informant. The accused persons in drunk condition entered the room and starting beating persons therein. They also entered the room wherein the minor sisters-in-law of the informant were changing clothes and tried to outrage their modesty. The cloth of the minor victims were also torn. An application was given in this regard before the concerned police station, but no attention was paid, therefore, the present complaint has been filed. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned. Hence the present application was filed.
Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that
during pendency of the present case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between them. In this regard, an application alongwith affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has been filed before the court below stating therein that the parties have entered into compromise and she does not want to press the case, a copy of said application and affidavit have been annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.
Ms. Maimuna, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 too reiterates the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
In view of the above, this Court feels that in an offence, which is serious in nature regarding molestation and outraging the modesty of minor children, no compromise can take place. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly, in the case of Ram Pal vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR online 2019 SC 1716 , it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault.
The Court further observed that in case, such application given by the complainant/opposite party no.2 is to be believed, the same would encourage misuse of the liberty given to the minor children by the Special Act. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted to protect children from sexual assault and its misuse cannot be permitted.
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 the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. Therefore, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .
However, it is open to the parties to appear before the Court below and move an application regarding compromise. The concerned court below shall pass an appropriate order on such application, in
accordance with law and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in such Special Act.
It is made clear that no interim order has been granted in favour of the applicants and the court concerned shall proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether parties can compound offences involving molestation and outraging modesty of minors under special laws requiring a settlement.
Whether a compromise filed by the victim's sister-in-law justifies quashing proceedings in POCSO Act and IPC offences.
Whether the protection afforded to minors under the POCSO Act permits private settlement of alleged sexual assault cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. vs. Laxmi NarayanReferred¶11
State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Ram Pal vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶11
Ram Pal vs. State of Haryana AIR online 2019 SC 1716 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Aakil and 4 Others
State of U.P.
Nighat Khan
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
