Allowed

Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru. His Father and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/6461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Bench allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and POCSO following a verified compromise between parties. The Court held that minimal chance of conviction rendered continuation of proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act were quashed.

Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50285

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6461 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru. His Father And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 60 of 2022 (State vs. Dragpal Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad/Ayodhya pending in the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad as well as impugned charge sheet No. 261/22 dated 28.08.2022 submitted against the applicant No. 1 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and against the applicant No. 2 under Sections 323, 504, 506 in the said Case Crime Number.

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1644 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 17.05.2023 on reproduction reads as under:-

¶11

"(C. M. Application No.IA/3/2023)

¶12

1. The instant application has been filed by the applicant for listing of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3.

¶14

3. Having regard to the nature and assertions made in the application, the instant listing application is allowed.

¶15

4. With the consent of parties, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

¶16

taken up for hearing today itself.

¶17

(Order on APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1644 of 2023)

¶18

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that he does not want to press the instant application and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application with better particulars in respect to the applicant nos.2 to 4.

¶19

2. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have no objection the aforesaid prayer.

¶20

3. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application with better particulars in respect to the applicant nos.2 to 4.

¶21

4. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant no.1, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, Sri Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the entire record.

¶22

5. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.60 of 2022 "State vs. Dragpal Yadav and others" arising out of Case Crime No.298 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 relating to Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad as well as impugned charge sheet no.261/22, dated 28.08.2022, submitted against the applicant no.1, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and against the applicant nos.2 to 4, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number in the light of compromise attained between the parties.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the applicant no.1 as well as learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 submit that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3 are child as defined under POCSO Act. They further submit that they have entered into a compromise on 31.01.2023. They have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and have decided not to contest the case against each other. Copy of the compromise dated 31.01.2023 is on record as Annexure No.3 to the instant application.

¶24

7. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below, as such, compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the concerned parties before the court below.

¶25

8. Accordingly, this application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, notices be issued to applicant no.1 and opposite party nos.2 and 3 to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court concerned and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶26

9. The court concerned in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant no.1 to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶27

10. The Registry of the Court is directed to return the original compromise deed annexed with the instant application as Annexure No.3 to the learned counsel for the applicant no.1 after retaining a photocopy of the same on record.

¶28

11. It is also provided that during the process of verification of compromise, process, if any, is found to be issued against the applicant no.1, the same shall not be given effect to qua the present applicant no.1, namely, Dragpal Yadav alias Drikpal."

¶29

It appears from the order dated 28.03.2024 that the court concerned has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2022, indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶31

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶32

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Arun/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru. His Father and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru. His Father and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shah Alam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Imran Ahmad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Shamsher Singh vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another