Dismissed¶14

Smt Rajni and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2025A482/28442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application by accused (Smt. Rajni and Vinmod Kumar) in POCSO matter (Case Crime No. 178 of 2023, Sessions Case No. 1288 of 2023, P.S. Mirhachi, Etah) challenging charge sheet dated 16.09.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.10.2023 on basis of compromise dated 09.08.2024; dismissed - no compromise permissible in POCSO matters per State of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (SLP (Cr,.) No. 24362 of 2021) as urged by learned A.G.A.; Coram: Rajeev Misra, J.; decided 2.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:308.

What did the court decide?

Confronted with the objection that, per the Apex Court's law in State of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman, no compromise can be entered into in matters arising out of the POCSO Act, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same. ¶11

Smt Rajni and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet dated 16.09.2023 and the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 18.10.2023 in Sessions Case No. 1288 of 2023, in view of the compromise dated 09.08.2024, should be entertained or dismissed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicants, and with the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. remaining unable to be dislodged, the court found no good or sufficient ground to entertain the application.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.), Order dated 2.1.2025, Application U/S 482 No. 28442 of 2024: applicants Smt. Rajni and Vinmod Kumar challenged the police report (charge sheet) dated 16.09.2023 submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 178 of 2023 (Sections 376, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 120-B I.P.C.; Section 66E I.T. Act; Sections 16/17 and 3/4 POCSO Act; P.S. Mirhachi, District Etah) and the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Exclusive Court) POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Case No. 1288 of 2023, in view of the compromise dated 09.08.2024 entered into by the parties. Invoking the Apex Court's law in State of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (SLP (Cr,.) No. 24362 of 2021), the learned A.G.A. objected that no compromise can be entered into by the parties in matters arising out of the POCSO Act; the applicants' counsel could not overcome the objection, and the court, finding no good or sufficient ground to entertain the application irrespective of the varied submissions urged, dismissed it.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:308

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28442 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Rajni And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2. .

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Smt. Rajni and Vinmod Kumar challenging the police report (charge sheet) dated 16.09.2023 submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 178 of 2023 under Sections 376, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 120-B I.P.C., Section 66E I.T. Act, Sections 16/17 and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Mirhachi, District-Etah, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 18.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (Exclusive Court) POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in consequential Sessions Case No. 1288 of 2023 (State Vs. Smt. Rajni and another) under Sections 376, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 120-B I.P.C., Section 66E I.T. Act, Sections 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station-Mirhachi, District-Etah in view of the compromise dated 09.08.2024 entered into by the parties.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs.

¶10

Hafsal Rahman,Special Leave Petition (Cr,.) No. 24362 of 2021 , no compromise can be entered into by the parties in matters arising out of the POCSO Act. As such, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, this court does not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain this application.

¶13

As a result, this application fails and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶14

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 YK

¶16

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Rajni and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajni and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rukhsar Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagya Shree and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raunak Singh vs State of Up and Another

Akshay Kumar and 12 Others vs State of Up and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others