It is also settled that offences which involve moral turpitude and grave offences like rape, murder etc. even if compromised cannot be quashed in exercise of High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as such offences are against the State and cannot be restricted to two individuals or groups.
11. In the case in hand, the offences are grave in nature involving minor victim. The allegations are under Section 354A (2)/307 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, when the offences are grave in nature and allegation is of an attempt of rape of a minor, such allegation and criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the
families of the victim and accused inasmuch when it is a sexual offence involving a minor, the parents, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot give consent on behalf of the minor to compromise such serious offences.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : CRL.REVN 5/2021
MR. LIMHATHUNG Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND
BEFORE
MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Date of Judgment/ Order :24.03.2022
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland.
2. The present application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR dated 06.10.2016 registered as Kohima (N) PS Case No. 0074/2016 and for
quashing of criminal proceeding in GR No. 196/2016 presently pending before
the court of District and Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland.
3. The background fact leading to filing of the present petition is that on
15.10.2016, the respondent No. 2 herein lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-
Charge, Kohima (N) Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that while his daughter
was on her way home, the present petitioner dragged the minor daughter of the
petitioner to an isolated place to attempted to molest and murder his daughter,.
On the basis of the aforesaid ejahar, the Kohima (N) PS case No. 0074/2016
under Section 354A (2)/307 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
4. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested.
Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail. After completion of the
investigation, the I.O. filed charge-sheet. When the matter was pending before
the trial court, on 22.11.2016, the family of the informant and the petitioner’s
family decided to compromise the matter so as to put to an end to the matter.
5. On the basis of such compromise, the petitioner has approached this court
for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the FIR dated 15.10.2016.
The only ground taken and urged in the present proceeding for quashing the
aforesaid criminal proceeding is the compromise so entered. The respondent
No. 2, the father of the alleged victim has entered appearance in the present
proceeding and filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein he has admitted the
compromise and the deed of compromise dated 22.11.2016.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking clue from the said affidavit
more particularly the paragraph 4 of the said affidavit submits that as the
parties have compromised the matter, it will be a futile exercise to continue with
the trial. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing
the FIR dated 15.10.2016 as well as charge-sheet and the entire criminal
proceeding being GR case No. 196/2016.
7. The learned State counsel vehemently opposes such prayer on the ground
that such heinous crime cannot be compromised inasmuch as law is well settled
in this regard.
8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials available on
record as well as the compromise document.
9. The law is by now well settled that courts can compound cases in exercise
of its power under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is also
well settled that High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can quash criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offences,
considering fact and circumstances of the case more particularly when disputes
are amicably settled and the victim is having no objection to such compromise.
10. Under what circumstances and in which cases the High Court can exercise
such power will depend on the fact and circumstances of each case. It is also
settled that offences which involve moral turpitude and grave offences like rape,
murder etc. even if compromised cannot be quashed in exercise of High Court’s
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as such offences are against the
State and cannot be restricted to two individuals or groups.
11. In the case in hand, the offences are grave in nature involving minor
victim. The allegations are under Section 354A (2)/307 read with Section 18 of
the POCSO Act. Therefore, when the offences are grave in nature and allegation
is of an attempt of rape of a minor, such allegation and criminal proceeding
cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the
families of the victim and accused inasmuch when it is a sexual offence
involving a minor, the parents, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot
give consent on behalf of the minor to compromise such serious offences.
12. In view of the aforesaid findings, discussions and reasons, this revision
petition is dismissed. The learned court below is directed to proceed with the
trial forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment