Heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed by High Court under Section 482 CrPC even if parties reach a compromise: Delhi High Court

Heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed by exercising inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) even if a compromise has been reached between parties, the Delhi High Court recently reiterated ( Dinesh Sharma and Ors v. State and Anr ).

. A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with an application filed under Section 482 to quash the charges against the Petitioner accused of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( POCSO Act) .

The Court said, that it is settled law by the Supreme Court that such proceedings cannot be quashed and it is bound to follow the dictum laid down by the apex court under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.

" A perusal of the above mentioned cases shows that the Supreme Court has categorically stated that heinous crime like rape cannot be quashed by the High Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the prosecutrix and the accused have entered into a compromise. The said judgments are binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is accused of an offence under POCSO Act, " the Court said.

. The Court further stated that the intention of the legislature in enacting the POCSO Act was to protect the welfare of the children and quashing proceedings under the Act would be an attempt to go against the intention of the law makers.

" Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an offence under POCSO Act would go against the intention of the legislature which has brought out the special enactment to protect the interests of children. The FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority has decided to compromise the matter with the accused, " the order stated.

. The First Information Report against the accused was filed under Sections 354 (assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354D (stalking), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act

. The complaint was lodged against Dinesh Sharma, who was distant relative of the prosecutrix. Sharma allegedly went to their house in search of a job, then later started doing small work/house chores for the the family of the prosecutrix. After few days, he started harassing the prosecutrix when her parents were not at home. When the family came to know about it, they expelled him from the job immediately.

" My mother and father had gone out, then Dinesh came and picked me up from behind and took me to another room with wrong intentions. I made a noise, then he left me and said that I made a mistake, it will not happen in future, when my mother and father came to the house, I told them everything, then my mother & father expelled him from the house at the same time, he apologized and said that it will not happen again, " the complaint said.

After some time, in February, 2017, the prosecutrix along with her family went to Jalandhar to attend a family wedding where they also met Dinesh and his two nephews Deepak and Vishal who live in Bangalore.

During the wedding, Deepak and Vishal started threatening the prosecutrix that if she refuses to 'accept their friendship' then they will leak her nude pictures on the internet. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners.

" They asked me to be a friend, I refused him. One day I was sitting alone, Vishal and Deepak came, they said that if you will not accept our friendship, we will defame you because Dinesh has told us all about you & your family, he also has your nude picture. Both of them tried to drag me into the room by holding my hand, so I released my hand and ran away and told all these things to my mother, my mother rebuked them and said that I had gathered the people of your house and call the police ."

. The High Court initially noted that it is a well settled law that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be distinguished from the power which lies with the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of CrPC.

" No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has the power to quash even in those offences which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, but the power has to be exercised fairly and with caution. Offence of rape is a heinous crime punishable under Section 376 IPC, " the Court emphasised.

. The Court also noted that the accused has been charged under the POCSO Act, which was introduced to protect the welfare and interest of the children. The Court briefly discussed the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act and held that exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash an offence under POCSO Act would go against the intention of the legislature.

The Court, therefore, rejected to interfere with the proceedings and held that it cannot quash the FIR registered under POCSO Act for henious charges like rape.

In doing so, reliance was placed on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan .

In the above judgments, the Supreme Court had made it clear that heinous and serious offences like murder, rape etc. cannot be quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.

The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition holding that FIR cannot be quashed.

" In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.193/2018 dated 07.05.2018 registered in Police Station Shakarpur, wherein the petitioners have been accused of the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act ."

. [Read Order]

Heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed by High Court under Section 482 CrPC even if parties reach a compromise: Delhi High Court

Areeb Uddin Ahmed

Related Stories