Allahabad High Court
Sanjay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38898 of 2022 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Maharajganj as well as proceeding of the Special Sessions Case No.67 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjay) arising out of Case Crime No.210 of 2018, under Sections 354Ka, 354Kha, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Puranderpur, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have settled the matter by way of compromise deed dated 23.08.2022, outside the court, copy of which is annexed as annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No.16207 of 2022 (Guddu and another Vs. State of UP and another) in which the Court allowing the petition quashed the entire proceeding in the matter arising out of POCSO Act also considering the following precedents:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008)9 SCC 677
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another, (2020) 3 SCC 736
19. Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Shahroz