Alimuddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others

Short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and 3 is taken on record.

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 26.01.2021 along with entire proceedings of Case No.241 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3(2)5A SC/ST Act, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Bahraich on the ground that parties have arrived at a settlement.

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 03.03.2020 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 16 years on 06.05.2019.

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she was aged about 19 years, her father had got her married to one Tilak Ram against her wishes and, therefore, she had gone away with the applicant to Delhi about two years ago and she is living with him as his wife. The victim declined to undergo medico legal examination and as per radiological examination report her age has been opined to be aged about 18 years.

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she reiterated her earlier version and stated that she was major and she has married the applicant out of her own freewill.

In spite of the aforesaid statements, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet dated 26.01.2021 and the trial court took cognizance of the offence by means of an order dated

18.02.2021 and summoned the applicant to face trial. The compromise entered into between the complainant and the victim one one side and the applicant on the other side has been annexed with the application, wherein the parties have jointly stated that the opposite party no.3 is wife of the applicant, two children have born out of their wedlock and she is residing happily with her family and the parties do not want any criminal proceedings to continue in the present case.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. A copy of compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure No.10 of the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.

The opposite party no.2 (complainant) has filed a short counter affidavit admitting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

In the case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

........where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC."

In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously.

In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. " However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.