POCSO Cases Can Be Quashed If Victim & Accused Reach A Genuine Compromise, Are Leading Happy Married Life: HP HC
While ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to quashing of POCSO cases, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment cited as Cr.MMO No. 648 of 2023 that was reserved on December 5 and then finally pronounced on December 8, 2023 has ruled explicitly that Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cases can be quashed if the victim and the accused reach a genuine compromise and are leading a happy married life. It must be disclosed here that the case centred around a man accused of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. In this leading case we see that the victim who is now his wife and her family had reconciled and had amicably also resolved the dispute. What is more is that we notice that their commitment to lead a new life together by reconciling with the past then eventually culminated in their marriage.
We must pay our attention to the glaring fact that the Single Judge while hearing the plea for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compromise had clearly held that the compromise of the child victim and her parents with the petitioner was inconsequential. The Court had underscored that in serious offences like those under the POCSO Act, the crime is against the State and private parties cannot compromise the matter. What stands out most distinguishably is that the Division Bench held that the view taken by the Single Judge on the issue was not correct and hence set it aside. Resultantly, we thus see that the petition was allowed and the FIR for POCSO Act was quashed.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan for a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla had set the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Upon reference by learned Single Judge of this Court, this Division Bench is called upon to resolve the question as to whether this Court can quash FIR on the basis of a compromise in an offence as involved in the instant case.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The minimal facts as necessary for determining the question are that the petitioner Ranjeet Kumar filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2020, dated 08.03.2020, registered under Sections 363, 376, 212, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’) with the Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, bearing No. 108/2020, pending in the Court of Fast learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track POCSO Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. Such quashing was sought mainly on the ground that the family members of the petitioner (accused) as well as the child victim had settled the matter by solemnising the marriage of the child with the petitioner on 09.03.2023 and thereafter they had been residing together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home and a compromise to this effect has also been effected on 17.04.2023.”
As we see, the Division Bench points out in para 3 that, “While seeking quashing, support was sought to be drawn from the judgments already rendered by some of the learned Single Judges of this Court in Sahil vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 (2) Him. L.R. (HC) 739 and Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 549 of 2021, titled as Sakshi and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 08.11.2021, whereby in similar circumstances, the FIR and consequent proceedings thereto had been quashed.”
To recapitulate, the Bench then recalls in para 4 that, “The learned Single Judge vide reference order, after placing reliance on a three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and thereafter in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, which dealt with the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereafter relying upon the provisions of the POCSO and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India and others 2018 (7) SCALE 88, Criminal Appeal No. 1874 of 2022, titled as State of Maharashtra and another vs. Dr. Maroti 2023 (4) SCC 298 and ultimately while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daxaben vs. The State of Gujarat and others (2022) 11 SCALE 329, held that the compromise of the child victim and the parents with petitioner was inconsequential. It was further observed that the role of the complainant had come to an end after putting the criminal machinery into motion by informing the police and in serious offences like the present one, the crime is always against the State and private parties, cannot compromise the matter.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 43 that, “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Division Bench enunciates in para 44 that, “As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980 (1) SCC 63, while summing up the essence of compromise, it observed as under:-
“….The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.””
Quite reasonably, the Division Bench then after considering everything observes in para 45 that, “In the given facts and circumstances, we are persuaded to uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge(s) in Sahil and Sakshi’s cases (supra) and conclude that the High Court in a case of instant kind where the victim had earlier alleged that she had been subjected to sexual assault but then has later on settled the dispute and has got married to the accused and is leading a peaceful life. Invariably, in such like cases, the Court after being satisfied would not allow the prosecution to continue, which would only result in disturbances of their happy family life.”
Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 46 that, “This Court on the basis of the material placed on record has satisfied itself that the child victim and her family members have settled the dispute and the victim is now leading a happy and a peaceful married life and, therefore, allowing the prosecution to continue in such case would only result in disturbance in their happy family life, and ends of justice in such circumstances would demand that the parties be allowed to compromise. We are further satisfied that such compromise is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise is voluntarily. Lastly and more importantly, the Court is satisfied after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings would promote justice for victim and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then propounds in para 47 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that the view taken by the learned Reference Court is not correct view and is accordingly set aside. On the other hand, the views as taken by the other Hon’ble Single Judges in Sahil vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 (2) Him. L.R. (HC) 739 and Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 549 of 2021, titled as Sakshi and others vs. State of H.P. and others, which are more in tune with what has been observed here-in-above, are the correct views. The reference is answered accordingly.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 48 that, “Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 39 of 2020, dated 08.03.2020, registered under Sections 363, 376, 212, 120-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, with the Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. and all consequential proceedings thereunder are quashed and set aside.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court has been most sagacious in holding unquestionably that POCSO cases can be quashed if the victim and the accused reach a genuine compromise as we see in this leading case also and who are leading a happy married life also. Both the victim and the accused decide mutually to look forward in life and so the Court looking into the manner in which accused and victim had moved forward and were happily married and so rightly decided that the view that was taken by the Single Judge Bench in this leading case was not correct and so set it aside. The Division Bench also allowed the petition and the FIR against the accused was quashed!
Author Bio
