Madras High Court
Elayaraja vs The State Represented By on 20 January, 2023
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.12.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.No.28937 of 2022
Elayaraja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station – Sethiyathope,
Cuddalore District.
Crime No.3 of 2020.
2.Suguna
3.Niroshini ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2020
pending before the Special Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of cases under
POCSO Act, Cuddalore arising out of Crime No.3 of 2020 dated 26.05.2020
for the offences under Sections 451 IPC and 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012@
451, 354 (D) of IPC and 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the file of the
respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal since the matter has been
settled amicably outside the Court between the petitioner and defacto
complainant.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Manikandan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2020 pending before the Special Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore, arising out of Crime No.3 of 2020, dated 26.05.2020, for the offences under Sections 451 IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 @ Sections 451, 354 (D) IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal since the matter has been settled amicably outside the Court between the petitioner and defacto complainant.
2.The allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.05.2020, the petitioner had sexually assaulted the de-facto complainant's daughter, who was aged about 16 years. Pursuant to the same, a case was registered in Crime No.3 of 2020 dated 26.05.2020, for the offences under Sections 451 IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Subsequently, after investigation FIR was altered as under Sections 451, 354 (D) IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of cases 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 under POCSO Act, Cuddalore,
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled outside the Court amicably between the parties. The Defacto complainant, victim girl and the petitioner have filed an affidavit and Joint Compromise Memo, dated 04.11.2022, before this Court to the effect that during the pendency of the case, the victim girl attained majority and on obtaining valid consent to marriage from the victim girl, the mother and the parents of the victim and accused respectively, made arrangements for marriage. Their marriage was solemnized on 16.09.2022 in the presence of both family members and now they both are living together happily as husband and wife. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner.
4.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 16571 of 2022, dated 20.07.2022, wherein a case of similar nature was quashed on the ground that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 the first petitioner, victim girl and their parents as well. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:-
9. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022
10. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the first petitioner, sixth petitioner and the victim girl and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young persons who are still in their early twenties. Quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave the way for the sixth petitioner and the victim girl to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of the first petitioner, victim girl and their parents as well.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on 26.05.2020, the petitioner had sexually assaulted the de-facto complainant's daughter, who was aged about 16 years. Pursuant to the same, a case was registered in Crime No.3 of 2020 dated 26.05.2020, for the offences under Sections 451 IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Subsequently, after investigation FIR was altered as under Sections 451, 354 (D) IPC and 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Charge sheet was filed before the Special Court, 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 Cuddalore. He further submitted that though the parties had entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. Perusal of records shows that the allegations, though serious, are totally personal in nature. If the proceedings are allowed to be continued, there are chances where the victim would turn hostile and there are only bleak chances for the case to end up in conviction. Further, the continuation of criminal proceedings itself would cause serious prejudice to both the victim girl and the accused.
8.In recent times, the offences under POCSO Act are committed by the teenagers in the raising trend, not being aware of the consequences. Considering such cases, compromise of victim and accused, on the ground that they have got legally married, has been accepted and thereby, the cases 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 have been quashed against them in the following cases: (1) Ashok Dhondiba Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra through Investigation Officer and Others reported in 2018 SCC Online Bom 1826; (2) Nivas Balu Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2018 SCC Online Bom 12997; (3) Ajith Vs. The State and Ors reported in MANU/TN/4955/2022; (4) Anandan and Ors. Vs. State and Ors reported in MANU/TN/6968/2022.
9.Therefore, keeping the well settled positions of law for quashing the non-compoundable offences in mind, in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to quash the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2020, pending before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore as against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2020, pending before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore is quashed as against the petitioner. The joint compromise memo and the 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 affidavit of the parties shall form part and parcel of this order.
20.01.2023 sli Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order To:
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station – Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District.
Crime No.3 of 2020.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P..No.28937 of 2022 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
sli Pre-delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.28937 of 2022 20.01.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis