State v. Sonu alias Shanurrahman) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63854 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28224 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Sonu @ Shanurrahman And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Gopal Das Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhat Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Satish Kumar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018 (State vs. Sonu alias Shanurrahman) arising out of Case Crime No. 700 of 2014 U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act Police Station- Khetasarai District- Jaunpur pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ POCSO court no.1, Jaunpur. 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that opposite party no.2 lodged FIR against the applicants under Section 363 IPC in case crime no. 700 of 2014. During the investigation, police has recorded the statement of victim Neelu alias Gulistan Fatima. In her statement the victim namely Neelu alias Gulistan Fatima has respectively stated that she was 19 years old and she left her house on her own will with Shanu Rehman (applicant no.1). As both of them were having love affair. Thereafter, both went to Chennai and got married and started living as husband and wife. During the investigation, the ossification test of victim was also conducted. As per the ossification test, the age of the victim was about 19 years on 24.12.2014. However, the police has filed the charge sheet against the applicants under section 363, 376 IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act on the basis of birth certificate of class-V issued by head master from the concerned school. As per the birth certificate, age of victim on the date of incident was about 17 years. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as on date applicant no.2 and victim have been residing as husband and wife and out of their wedlock they have five issues. It is also submitted that marksheet of class-V which was the basis of filing the charge sheet is not reliable document as the same was not counter signed by BSA. It is further submitted from the ossification test report as well as the statement of victim, it is clear that at the time of incident she was 19 years old. Thereafter, the first informant who is the father of the victim has entered into a compromise and willingly permitted to applicant no.1 and his daughter (victim) to live as husband and wife and accepted their relationship. Considering these fact this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024 has also directed to the court below to verify the compromise and submit its report to this Court. 6. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the court below submitted its report dated 04.07.2024 mentioning therein that the compromise between the parties has been verified. Apart from this, the statement of the victim recorded during verification of compromise which has been annexed as page-8 of the supplementary affidavit dated 11.08.2024 shows that she has been residing with the applicant no.1 as his wife and out of their wedlock, five children have born out. It is also mentioned in the above statement that the victim was 19 years old at the time of incident. From the statement of the first informant who is the father of the victim recorded during the verification of compromise, he stated that his daughter namely Neelu has been residing with applicant no.1 as wife and he has no grievance and he also did not state that at the time of incident, victim was minor. 6 (a). It is also submitted by the counsel for the applicant that as per The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, even if at the time of marriage, a muslim women is below 18 years the marriage will be valid between two muslims. Therefore, even it is accepted for the sake of argument that the victim was at the time of leaving home as well as getting married to the applicant no.1 was 17 years even then no offence is made out. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as opposite party no.2 has submitted that as the parties have settled their dispute amicably and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the court below in pursuance of direction of this Court. 8. However, learned AGA has submitted that as per section 42-A of the POCSO Act, the act will prevail over the other provision if in case of inconsistency and the mark sheet shows that he was below 18 years may be above 17 years. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the mark sheet which was relied upon the Investigating Officer itself is doubtful and cannot be relied upon and the ossification test conducted by the police, shows that the victim was 19 years old at the time of incident. In the statement of victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. no allegations of sexual assault has been made. Prima-facie no offence under section 376 IPC or Section 4 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicants. Considering these facts that the parties have settled their dispute and the victim has been residing with applicant no.1 as wife and five children have been born out from their wedlock and at the time of incident, the victim was major about 19 years old. No offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is made out. In such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:- "15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;" 12. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out. 13. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicants, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences. 14. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018 (State vs. Sonu alias Shanurrahman) arising out of Case Crime No. 700 of 2014 U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act Police Station- Khetasarai District- Jaunpur pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ POCSO court no.1, Jaunpur, are hereby quashed. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 C. MANI Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad