Allahabad High Court
Monu @ Mohit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106897 Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5297 of 2023 Applicant :- Monu @ Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connect with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5384 of 2023 Applicant :- Jeeraj Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kanchan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Joint affidavits in the both the petitions have been filed by learned counsel for the parties in the Court today, which are taken on record. Office is directed to registered the same.
Heard Mr. Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant in Application U/S 482 No.- 5297 of 2023, Mrs. Kanchan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants in Application U/S 482 No.- 5384 of 2023 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.
The application U/s 482 No. 5297 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 11.03.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.348 of 2020 (State vs. Monu), arising out of Case Crime No.536 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties dated 14.08.2019.
The application U/s 482 No. 5384 of 2023 has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15790 of 2020 (State vs. Geeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 308 IPC, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties dated 14.08.2019.
Earlier on 11.05.2023, the following order was passed:-
"As there are cross versions of the incident registered by both the parties, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these applications are being heard by a common order.
Heard Mr. Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant in Application U/S 482 No.- 5297 of 2023, Mrs. Kanchan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants in Application U/S 482 No.- 5384 of 2023 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.
The application U/s 482 No. 5297 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 11.03.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.348 of 2020 (State vs. Monu), arising out of Case Crime No.536 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties dated 14.08.2019.
The application U/s 482 No. 5384 of 2023 has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15790 of 2020 (State vs. Geeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 308 IPC, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties dated 14.08.2019.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 22.07.2019 at about 12:26 a.m. by Jeeraj Singh, father of the victim against the applicant-Monu @ Mohit Kumar with the allegation that Monu @ Mohit Kumar entered the house of opposite party no.2 and was found in objectionable position with the daughter of the opposite party no.2. The daughter of opposite party no.2 is aged about 15 years. In the aforesaid case, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. Annoyed by the aforesaid case, an FIR was lodged by Rajkumar, father of Monu against Jeeraj Singh and other family members, which came to be registered as Case Crime No.544 of 2019 in which charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2020.
Today, the applicant-Monu @ Mohit Kumar and the victim-Sakshi are present before this Court, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsels.
The victim-Sakshi states that she has married Monu @ Mohit Kumar and is living happy married life. She also states that the marriage has been accepted by the families of both sides. She also states that she is on family way. The applicant-Monu @ Mohit Kumar undertakes to take care of Sakshi and states that marriage has been accepted by his family members also. Both the parties state that they do not want to proceed with the case.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that the applicant; Monu @ Mohit Kumar has married the victim-Sakshi, therefore, continuance of proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of law. They further submits that the purpose of POCSO Act is to protect children from sexual exploitation, not to criminalize consensual romantic relationship between the parties, which has resulted in marriage.
In view of the above, Jeeraj Singh (father of the victim) and Rajkumar (father of the applicant-Monu) are directed to be present before this Court on the next date fixed, i.e. 15.05.2023.
Put up this case on 15.05.2023, as fresh, alongwith connected matter for further hearing.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against all the applicants herein in the aforesaid both cases.
As the statements of the applicant-Monu @ Mohit Kumar and the victim-Sakshi have already been recorded, therefore, they are exempted for appearance."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, ultrasound report dated 14.01.2023 of the victim; Sakshi has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the joint affidavit, which goes to show that the victim is on family way.
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2023, Jeeraj Singh (father of the victim) and Rajkumar (father of the applicant-Monu) are present before this Court, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsels. They state that they have accepted the marriage, which their children have performed and have no grudges against each other. They do not want to proceed with the case and request that the proceedings against each other may be dropped.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that as the applicant; Monu has married Sakshi and now, the victim Sakshi is on family way, therefore, continuance of proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law. They further submits that the purpose of POCSO Act is to protect children from sexual exploitation, not to criminalize consensual romantic relationship between the parties, which has resulted in marriage. Hence, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
"57. 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 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
In the present case, no doubt offence under the relevant section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases (supra), power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that as the applicant; Monu and the victim; Sakshi are living a happy married life and the victim is on family way, therefore, continuation of proceeding of criminal cases against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law and will ruin the happy married life of both of them and also affect the fate of the child, who has not seen this world. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal cases as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 11.03.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.348 of 2020 (State vs. Monu), arising out of Case Crime No.536 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut and the charge sheet dated 30.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15790 of 2020 (State vs. Geeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 308 IPC, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, pending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut are hereby quashed.
These applications are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Jitendra/-