Dismissed

Rahul Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC23 Oct 2024C528/720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings for offences under IPC 376(3) and POCSO. Despite alleged settlement, the Court dismissed the petition as the offences are serious and non-compoundable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul Maurya Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

2024:UHC:7942

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Criminal Misc Application No. 720 of 2024 23 October, 2024

¶4

Rahul Maurya --Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Uttarakhand & Others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

Presence:-

¶9

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner/accused. Mr. G. S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Piyush Tiwari, counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

¶11

This criminal misc. application is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. by the petitioner/accused for quashing the entire proceedings pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani in Special Session Trial No. 73 of 2022 ‘State vs. Rahul Maurya’ for the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no.3/complainant (father of respondent no.2/victim) against the present petitioner alleging therein that the present petitioner had made physical relationship with his daughter by which she got pregnant; that, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner/accused under Section 376(3) I.P.C. and 5/6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

¶14

2024:UHC:7942

¶15

He would further submit that during the trial, on 28.01.2023 the respondent no.2/victim has been examined as PW1, she stated that the age of the prosecutrix/victim is 19 years, therefore, at the time of the alleged incident i.e. 27.07.2022, the prosecutrix/victim was more than 18 years of age; that, now the marriage between the petitioner/accused and respondent no.2/victim was solemnized on 07.03.2024 and both are continuously discharging their matrimonial obligations.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner/accused would further submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the respondents do not want to prosecute the petitioner/accused further, therefore, a joint Compounding Application (IA No. 01 of 2024) has been filed by the parties to compound the alleged offence and prayed that the entire proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.

¶17

Per contra , learned State counsel vehemently opposed the compounding application on the ground that the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are non-compoundable and the same cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court under Section 359 of B.N.S.S. even if the compromise have taken place between the petitioner/accused and the respondent no.2 & 3; that, in such type of serious offence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed though, the victim and the offender have settled the dispute amicably, as such offences are not private but have a serious impact upon the Society.

¶18

¶19

2024:UHC:7942

¶20

Learned State counsel would further submit that in the charge-sheet, school records of the prosecutrix/victim were also filed, in accordance with which, the respondent no.2/victim was 14 years of age at time of the alleged incident; that, the trial of the case is on final stage as now the case is fixed before the trial court for the statement of the petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the other witnesses have also not been annexed with this petition; that, the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused is heinous, therefore, there is no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage.

¶21

It is trite that the powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

¶22

In the considered view of this Court, this is not a fit case in which, the powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. should be exercised.

¶23

Accordingly, the present C-528 petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine .

¶24

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶25

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)

¶26

Akash

¶27

23.10.2024

¶28

AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=5a2e7119d3eefb9c3389d15c3446ac8c20a28e181142c2e31d8b803058deb4ec, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=27096A1625377537A487DEE49224C891823FC6A0334628B21E516047ED4F22F7, cn=AKASH Date: 2024.10.25 15:05:50 +05'30'

¶29

Rahul Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhaan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandrakant Alias Major Chandrakant Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anuj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary Dehradun

Vimal Kumar Chaudhary Vs Harcharn Singh

Julfan Vs State of Uttarakhand