The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a POCSO case alleging rape attracting offences under IPC as the victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC denied any foul play, and had stated that she had willingly married the accused-applicant and was residing with him as his wife. The age of the victim was also found to be above 18 years through a radiological examination.

“Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act clearly defines the child who is below the age of 18 years but from the material available on record it appears that victim is above 18 years then no case under POCSO Act is made out and victim also stated u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that applicant has not committed any sexual offence against her and since the date of marriage they have been residing as husband and wife and, her mother just to extract five lakh rupees from her husband (applicant), lodged the present false case. In the medical examination also, no injury was found on the person of the victim and no opinion about sexual assault was given against the victim. Therefore, from the evidence on record it is also clear that no offence is made out against the present applicant. Filing of the charge sheet against the applicant u/s 363, 366, 376; 2N, 506 I.P.C. as well as Section 6 of POCSO Act was itself incorrect”, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed in the matter.

Advocate Sudhir Kumar Tiwari appeared for the applicant and G.A. Jitendra Singh appeared for the opposite party.

In the pertinent matter, an application was filed by the applicant-accused under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet dated September 25, 2016, a cognizance order dated February 10, 2017, a non-bailable warrant dated May 10, 2022, and an entire proceeding of a case for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 POCSO Act.

It was contended by the applicant, that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC submitted that she had willingly married the accused.

Further, stated that a compromise was also entered between the parties regarding the case because the victim, as well as the applicant, have been residing as husband and wife, and the age of the victim is above 18 years as per the medical examination.

Therefore, the pertinent question to be adjudicated upon by the Court was whether on the basis of compromise, offence u/s 376 IPC and POCSO Act can be quashed.

While answering in affirmative, the bench noted, “… although no specific provision has been incorporated in the CrPC for compounding any offence other than those mentioned in Section 320 CrPC, there may still be cases where victim would prepare to condone the conduct of the accused even though the charge is not compoundable. In such cases Court can exercise its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC even the offence is non compoundable u/s 320 CrPC. Though the High Court should not normally interfere with the criminal proceeding involving sexual offence against women and children only on the basis of ground of settlement, however it is not completely foreclosed in exercising its extraordinary power u/s 482 CrPC to quash such proceeding”.

The bench also relied on Ankit Jatav v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3075 of 2023, where the Rajasthan High Court had quashed a POCSO Case on the same ground.

Accordingly, the bench allowed the application.

Cause Title: Fakre Alam @ Shozil v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124719]

Click here to read/download the Order





Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Agatha Shukla