The High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC after the parties reached a mutual settlement and married. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to quash the proceedings arising from the alleged rape case.
Quashed and set aside the proceedings of Special (POCSO) Case No.14 of 2019.
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.
11 wp 1815.19 (smo).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1815 of 2019
(Order corrected pursuant to the order dated 8th August, 2019 passed in criminal application No.415 of 2019)
Rajkiran Jaywant Maskar …..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …..Respondent
Mr. S. P. Joshi i/b. Mr. S. S.Kamble, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite, advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2019.
P. C. :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, seeks leave to amend prayer clause of the petition so as to give particulars of the criminal case. Since amendment is necessitated due to subsequent development, leave as prayed for, is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today.
Shubhada S Kadam 1/5
11 wp 1815.19 (smo).doc
of the Special Judge at Islampur, District – Sangli. The said case arises out of registration of FIR bearing CR. No. 184 of 2018 with Shirala Police Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO”).
Shubhada S Kadam 2/5
11 wp 1815.19 (smo).doc
“28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.”
Shubhada S Kadam 3/5
11 wp 1815.19 (smo).doc
The decision of the Apex Court, thus, makes it clear that the Court cannot decline to quash the FIR merely because the FIR incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or an offence against the society. The Court has to endeavour to find out whether the FIR indeed discloses ingredients of such offence and that the Court can accept the settlement and quash the FIR / Charge-sheet, if the Court is of the opinion that such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the charge-sheet.
Shubhada S Kadam 4/5
11 wp 1815.19 (smo).doc
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] , we find
that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject criminal case pending except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC can be quashed upon settlement and mutual consent despite serious nature of offences.
Whether unnecessary inclusion of serious provisions in the FIR permits quashing based on settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶18
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶26
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajkiran Jaywant Maskar
The State of Maharashtra
Shubhada S Kadam
RANJIT MORE
BHARATI H. DANGRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
