Allahabad High Court Quashes 'False' POCSO Case Against Man As Victim Says Her Mother Filed FIR To Extract Money From Him

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also noted that the victim was admittedly above 18 years of age and hence, no case under POCSO Act was made out against the accused.

The Court also observed that as per the medical examination, no injury was found on the victim, and no opinion about sexual assault was given against the victim, and despite this, the police filed a charge sheet in a routine manner without looking into the material collected during the investigation.

In view of this, the Court opined that the proceedings under POCSO Act as well as u/s 376 IPC could be quashed if no case is made out from the material available on record. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings of Case u/s 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 I.P.C. and 6 POCSO Act against the accused.

The case in brief

The Court was essentially dealing with a plea filed by the Accused under Section 482 CrPC for the purpose of quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order, non-bailable warrant order dated and entire proceeding in the case against him

It was the contention of counsel for the applicant-accused that in her statement u/s 164 CrPC, the victim stated that she had willingly married the applicant and she has been residing with him as his wife.

After that, it was apprised to the Court that a compromise was also entered between the parties regarding this case because the victim and the applicant have been residing as husband and wife and the victim is also above 18 years as per the medical examination.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Bareilly also verified the compromise between the parties.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, though the Court referred to the Allahabad HC’s judgment in the case of Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 120 and Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104 wherein it had been observed that quashing a Rape case or cases POCSO Act on the basis of the compromise entered between the accused and the victim is legally impermissible, the court noted thus:

“…although no specific provision has been incorporated in the Cr.P.C. for compounding any offence other than those mentioned in Section 320 Cr.P.C., there may still be cases where victim would prepare to condone the conduct of the accused even though the charge is not compoundable.”

In this regard, the Court added that in such cases, the Court can exercise its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC even if the offence is non-compoundable u/s 320 CrPC.

“Though the High Court should not normally interfere with the criminal proceeding involving sexual offence against women and children only on the basis of ground of settlement, however, it is not completely foreclosed in exercising its extraordinary power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceeding,” the Court remarked.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that as per her Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim as well as a radiological examination of the victim that she is above 18 years and she got married to the applicant-accused in July 2014 willingly.

The Court further relied upon her Section 164 CrPC statement to note that no case was made out against the accused from the material available on record. In view of this, the Court quashed the entire proceedings in the case.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Sudhir Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Jitendra Singh

Case title - Fakre Alam @ Shozil vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 188 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41580 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 188

Click Here To Read/Download Order