Allahabad High Court
Vishal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 December, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192924 Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1369 of 2023 Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Vishal, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 11.07.2021 & cognizance order dated 16.09.2021 in Session Case No. 657 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.
3. Two grounds are being canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant for quashing of the proceedings of the present case. The first argument is that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 14.12.2022, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. The second ground which is being argued is that the trial in the present matter has started in which the first informant has been examined as P.W.-1, the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 and the mother of the victim has been examined as P.W.-3, the said statements have been placed before the Court which are annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the short counter affidavit dated 28.03.2023. While placing the said statements it is submitted that looking to the same it is a case of false implication and as such the proceedings be quashed. It is submitted that the first informant Rinku Valmiki has stated that the applicant and his daughter have solemnized marriage after which there was a dispute between families. It is submitted that looking to the same the proceedings be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the said arguments.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the accused in a case under various sections of Indian Penal Code and even for offences under the POCSO Act.
7. In so far as the proceedings under the POCSO Act is concerned, the same cannot be quashed in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents [Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023] decided on 20.08.2024 paragraph 22, 23 & 23.1. Further the Apex Court in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others: [Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12912 of 2022] decided on 07.11.2024 held that offence under the POCSO Act is heinous offence and not of private nature and hence the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Further this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 03 Others: Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:56128 in Application U/S 482 9169 of 2024 has also observed that offence under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
8. Looking to the facts of the matter, the limited argument on behalf of the applicant and the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (supra), Ramji Lal Bairwa & Another (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar (supra), as the proceedings of the present case are under the POCSO Act also and the trial is going on, the same cannot be quashed. No ground for interference is made out.
9. The present petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly, dismissed.
10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within three weeks from today.
12. The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously.
13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.12.2024 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)