Allowed

Sachin v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Oct 2024CRM-M/25245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of an FIR alleging offences against the petitioner including POCSO provisions. Parties had compromised and married; trial court verified statements were voluntary. Relying on Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh, the court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.160 dated 23.3.2023 and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

Sachin Vs State of Haryana and Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-25245-2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

262

¶5

Criminal Misc. No. M-25245 of 2024 Date of decision :-29.10.2024

Sachin

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, A AG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Abhishek Dhull, Advoc a te for Ms. Rashi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶15

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner has filed the p resent petition under Section 482 Cr.P . C., for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 23.3.2023 (Annexure P-1) und e r Sections 342, 354-D, 363, 36 6 , 376, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 o f POCSO Act, (Section 328 IP C and Section 66 of I.T. Act, 2000 added later on), registered at Polic e Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat a nd all the consequential proce e dings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise executed on 12.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected b etween the parties.

¶17

Pursuant to the order date d 09.7.2024 passed by this Court, th e parties appeared before the l e arned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Co u rt (POCSO), Sonipat, to get their stat e ments recorded. Learned Additional District & Sessions

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.10.29 19.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-25245-2024 2

¶20

Judge, F a st Track Special Court (POCS O ), Sonipat, has submitted his report al o ng with copies of statements o f the parties vide letter dated 23.7.202 4 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sonipat.

¶21

Learned counsel for the S t ate raises objection and on instructions submits that the marriage of the petitioner and the victim/re s pondent No.3 has not yet been v erified.

¶22

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner and the respondents No.2 an d 3 object to the same and s u bmit that the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Tehsild a r-cum-Marriage Registrar, Kharkho d a, Government of Haryana is on record as Annexure P-7. Even photographs of the marriage b etween petitioner and the victim/re s pondent No.3 are on record as A nnexure P-8.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Even in the report submitte d by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special C o urt (POCSO), Sonepat that marriage of the prosecutrix has been sole m nized with the petitioner on 27.2.202 4 on attaining the age of majo r ity. Certificate of Marriage was take n on record as ‘Mark-A’ and th e Compromise was taken on record as ‘Mark-B’. It is also informe d by learned counsel for the private p a rties that the victim/respondent No.3 is now pregnant.

¶25

A perusal of the above said report of Additional District & Sessio n s Judge, Fast Track Special Co u rt (POCSO), Sonepat would show tha t the petitioner and respondent s No.2 and 3 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to t he compromise, which have

¶26

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.10.29 19.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-25245-2024 3

¶28

been fou n d to be without any pressur e , coercion, threat or undue influence.

¶29

Learned counsel for the p e titioner submits that as per report, p e titioner is the only accused pers o n in the present FIR and has never be e n declared as proclaimed offen d er.

¶30

This Court has heard the le a rned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

¶31

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Addition a l District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO ) , Sonepat, this Court finds that t he matter has been amicably settled b e tween the petitioner and respo n dents No.2 and 3. Since the matter h a s been settled and the parties h a ve decided to live in peace, this Cour t feels that in order to secure th e ends of justice, the criminal proceedi n gs deserve to be quashed.

¶32

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab”, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High C o urt has power under Section 482 Cr.P . C. to allow the compounding o f non-compoundable offence and quas h the proceedings where the Hig h Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the ab u se of the process of law or otherwis e to secure the ends of justice. T his power of quashing is not confined t o matrimonial disputes alone.

¶33

Hon'ble Apex Court in the c a se of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the end s of justice or to prevent the abuse of p rocess of Court, inherent powe r can be used by this Court to

¶34

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.10.29 19.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-25245-2024

¶36

¶37

quash cri m inal proceedings in which a c o mpromise has been effected. The rele v ant portion of para 57 of the s aid judgment is reproduced here-in-b e low:-

¶38

“57. The position that emer g es from the above discussion can be summarised thus: th e power of the High Court in quashing a criminal procee d ing or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power g i ven to a criminal court for compounding the offences u n der Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be e xercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to pr e vent abuse of the process of any Court.”

¶39

In view of what has been d iscussed here-in-above, this petition i s allowed and FIR No.160 date d 23.3.2023 (Annexure P-1) under Se c tions 342, 354-D, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 o f POCSO Act, (Section 328 IP C and Section 66 of I.T. Act, 2000 added later on), registered at Polic e Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat a n d all the consequential procee d ings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are ordered to be qu a shed qua the petitioner.

¶40

October 2 9, 2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶41

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.10.29 19.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sachin v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin v. State of Haryana 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

Similar cases

Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gagandeep Singh Aujla Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rashpal Kaur Bhullar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Priyanka Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harneep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Akam Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others