Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81862 Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13151 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Short counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama filed by Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash summoning order dated 26.04.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.141 of 2022 (Guddi Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar), under Sections 363, 370-A IPC and Section 11/22 POCSO Act, Police Station Ajeetmal, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Auraiya.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from perusal of the impugned complaint as well as statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., no case under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act is made out as there is no allegation of sexual harassment on the part of the applicant and it is also clear from the complaint itself that the impugned complaint was filed only on the basis of apprehension and doubt. Even otherwise, now the parties have settled their dispute amicably and written compromise dated 01.11.2023 was also entered into between the parties. Copy of the said compromise has been annexed at page 38 of the paper book. It is also submitted that on the basis of compromise, impugned proceeding may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also filed short counter affidavit. In paragraph - 6 of that affidavit, it is mentioned by opposite party no.2 that because of some differences between opposite party no.2 and applicant and on the instigation of some villagers, impugned complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 and now they have settled their dispute and she does not want to proceed further against the applicant.
6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the offence under the POCSO Act is not compoundable offence, therefore, it cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
7. From the perusal of statement of opposite party no.2 as well as complaint, no case under POCSO Act is made out. As for making out the case there must be sexual assault but in the present case, the victim girl has not been examined, even otherwise, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and written compromise was also entered into between them. Opposite party no.2 has also filed short counter affidavit before this Court mentioning therein that she had filed impugned complaint on the basis of apprehension and doubt as well as on the instigation of some villagers. As in the impugned complaint, the complaint being the master of complaint, can withdraw the same under Section 257 Cr.P.C. specially those cases where serious offences are prima facie not made out.
8. In view of above, present application is disposed of with direction to the applicant to file original deed of compromise before the court below. In case such compromise is filed by the applicant, the court below after summoning the parties will verify the same and will permit the opposite party no.2 to withdraw the Complaint Case No.141 of 2022 (Guddi Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar), under Sections 363, 370-A IPC and Section 11/22 POCSO Act, Police Station Ajeetmal, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Auraiya.
9. With the aforesaid observation, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Atul