Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya has observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cases can be quashed if the victim and the accused reach a genuine compromise and are leading a happy married life.

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors.

What is the Background of the Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors. Case?

• The Single Judge, while hearing the plea for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) on the ground of compromise had held that the compromise of the child victim and her parents with the petitioner was inconsequential.
• The court had emphasized that in serious offences like those under the POCSO Act, the crime is against the State, and private parties cannot compromise the matter.
• The Division Bench explored the nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) and Section 320 of CrPC, which deals with compounding of offences.
• The Division bench held that the view taken by the Single Judge on the issue was not correct and hence set it aside. Resultantly the petition was allowed and the FIR for POCSO Act was quashed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• It is not in dispute that the accused was interested to soleminise marriage with the child victim and has, in fact, soleminised marriage.
• The victim got married and was leading a peaceful 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.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003):
  • The Supreme Court held that Section 320 CrPC does not limit or control the exercise of powers vested in the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC and the High Courts would have the power to quash criminal proceedings on an FIR under exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, even if the offence was non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
  • SC held that the power of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings or an FIR were not circumscribed by Section 320 CrPC.
• Manoj Sharma v. State & Other (2008):
  • SC took the view that once disputes are settled between the parties amicably, HC cannot refuse to exercise the jurisdiction either under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings, even if the offence involved is non-compoundable.
• Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Anr. (2009):
  • The SC held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of the civil dispute, which have been amicably settled between the parties, it was a fit case where technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceedings, since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.