High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14712 of 2023 Applicant :- Raj Karan Raidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babban Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Babban Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Siddharth Baghel, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Raj Karan Raidas with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 64 of 2014 (State Vs. Raj Karan Raidas) arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2014, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Fatehpur and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that according to radiological examination report, the age of the victim girl was aged about 19 years and as such she was a major girl as stated in para 7 of the affidavit. It is argued that the matter is of a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim. It is further argued that the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife and they are leading a happy married life and from their wedlock three children were born. It is argued while placing para 13 and annexure 4 to the affidavit that victim/wife of the applicant wants to withdraw the aforesaid case for which victim moved an application dated 11.07.2018 before the concerned trial court expressing her desire not to carry on the criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. It is argued that quashing of the proceedings of the present case is not permissible under law. The quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise and settlement cannot be considered in the present matter. It is argued that the present petition be dismissed. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is an accused in the present matter. The case is under sections which are mainly non compoundable. The Apex Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 in para nos.16, 17 and 18 has held as under:- "16. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint. 17. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 18. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited." 8. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that the matter under Section 376 I.P.C. is also such an offence, which, though committed in respect of a particular victim, cannot be termed to be a private dispute between the parties. It has serious adverse societal effect. Therefore, any proceeding on the basis of alleged compromise of the accused vis-a-vis the victim cannot be quashed.