Ranjeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ranjeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application u/s 482 allowed; charge-sheet no. 321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 and entire proceedings of S.T. No. 771 of 2020 (Case Crime No. 283 of 2020) quashed; recall-application liberty reserved to opposite party no. 2; parties directed to file a copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the compromise between the parties verified on 23.04.2025 and confirmed by counsel for both sides, the charge-sheet no. 321/2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 and entire proceedings of S.T. No. 771 of 2020 should be quashed.

Court's answer

Keeping in mind the positions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia, and in light of the amicable settlement verified on 23.04.2025 and confirmed by counsel for both sides, the Court quashed charge-sheet no. 321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 771 of 2020 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj.

Ratio / Principle

Since the order was passed after hearing the contesting parties, opposite party no. 2 was left at liberty to file a recall application explaining his reasons if he felt duped or betrayed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise - Application u/s 482 No. 16038 of 2024 (Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another): Charge-sheet no. 321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 and entire proceedings of S.T. No. 771 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 283 of 2020 under sections 452, 354(Gha), 323, 506 IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj, pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj, were quashed on the basis of a compromise verified by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 23.04.2025, with counsel for both sides jointly submitting that quashing would serve the ends of justice; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 58) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 relied upon. Application allowed; liberty reserved to opposite party no. 2 to move a recall application; copy of the order to be filed before the court concerned within two weeks.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16038 of 2024

Ranjeet Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dileep Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Anil Kumar Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet no.321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.771 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 354(Gha), 323, 506 IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Chhibramau, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Kannauj on dated 23.04.2025, which has been appended along with records, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties.

The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having

A482 No. 16038 of 2024

2

regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692] , Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, charge-sheet no.321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.771 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 354(Gha), 323, 506 IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Chhibramau, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj, are hereby quashed .

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

September 19, 2025 Saif

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad