Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein, the Court had stated that an application for dropping the criminal proceedings based on compromise to be moved before the Trial Court, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and this was a suitable case for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 4821 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the proceedings. As a result, the parties were unnecessarily compelled to approach the Court. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The First Information Report (‘FIR’) and the proceedings of Sessions Trial pending before the Special Judge were quashed.
The Court noted that a FIR was registered on 18-09-2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 354A2, 3633, 3664, 3765 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’).
The Court’s attention was drawn to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub Registrar, Varanasi, which records that the marriage between the accused and the victim was solemnized on 5-02-2016. It was further brought to the Court’s notice that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children have been born.
The Court noted that the victim, in her affidavit, acknowledged being happily married to the accused and confirmed that they have been residing together. She disclosed her date of birth as 20-07-1998. Furthermore, the record from the Primary School, as evidenced by the document. also lists her date of birth as 20-07-1998. An ossification test conducted during the investigation revealed that, at the time of the alleged offence, the victim’s age was between 17½ to 19 years. The documents on record consistently confirm that her date of birth is 20-07-1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September 2016, she was already a major.
The Court further observed that, since the accused and the victim are now happily married, continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment for the accused, the victim and their children.
The Court observed that, regarding the impugned order, the marriage certificate had been placed on record before the High Court. Furthermore, no objections from the first informant were recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, instead of entertaining the petition for quashing the case on the grounds of settlement, the High Court had stated that an application for dropping the criminal proceedings based on compromise could be moved before the Trial Court.
The Court said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and this was a suitable case for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. As a result, the parties were unnecessarily compelled to approach the Court.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The FIR and the proceedings of Sessions Trial pending before the Special Judge were quashed.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
1. Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
2. Section 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
3. Section 137(2) BNS.
