Rohit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rohit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 allowed; chargesheet dated 10.02.2024, order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2024 (State vs. Rohit Kumar) quashed; parties directed to file a copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks; liberty reserved to opposite party no. 4 to seek recall if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 10.02.2024, the order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2024 (State vs. Rohit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

Keeping in mind the position of law (including the principles in Gian Singh and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia) and the facts and circumstances of the case, the chargesheet dated 10.02.2024, the order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2024 (State vs. Rohit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun, are quashed in light of the compromise between the parties.

Key takeaways

Protective rider: if opposite party no. 4 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, he may file a recall application explaining the reasons for filing it.obiter¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of chargesheet and cognizance on compromise (Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J.) — In Application U/S 482 No. 38332 of 2024 (Rohit v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.), the High Court quashed the chargesheet dated 10.02.2024, the order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2024 (State vs. Rohit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai, since the parties had amicably settled their dispute and the compromise had been verified by the Special Judge on 03.05.2025 and was confirmed by counsel for the opposite parties. The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (paras 58-59: quashing permissible even where offences are not compoundable, when continuation would be futile and ends of justice demand it) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 (special facts/features warranting quashing to encourage genuine settlement). Liberty was reserved to opposite party no. 4 to file a recall application if he felt duped or betrayed, and the parties were directed to file a copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks. Order dated 07.07.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:106692.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106692

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38332 of 2024

Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 10.02.2024 and order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2024 (State Vs. Rohit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai on dated 03.05.2025 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

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 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, chargesheet dated 10.02.2024 and order of taking cognizance dated 18.03.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2024 (State Vs. Rohit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai, 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. 4 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.

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Vivek Kr.

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