Uttarakhand High Court
25 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 25 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:3150
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 529 of 2025
25 April, 2025
Gaurav Prasad and another .........Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Rajni Rangwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Dr. Manoj Gorkhela,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi , learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Present petition is filed to quash the
chargesheet, summoning order dated 20.12.2024
passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2024 under
Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 5(j)(ii)(i) read with
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 pending in the Court of Special
Sessions Judge (POCSO), District Pithoragarh as well
as the entire proceedings of the above case qua
the petitioners, in view of the compromise arrived
at between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
would submit that the parties have amicably settled
the dispute and now the respondent no.2 does not
want to prosecute the petitioners/accused further,
therefore, a joint compounding application (IA 1 of
2024) has been filed by the parties to compound the
1
2025:UHC:3150
alleged offences as the petitioner/accused are none
other than the family members and they were of
young age at the time of the alleged incident,
therefore, the entire proceedings of the criminal case
be quashed as continuation of the criminal
proceedings would be a futile exercise.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel would
vehemently oppose the submission made by counsel
for the petitioners/accused on the ground that the
offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are
serious; that, the offences are not private and have a
serious impact upon the society, therefore, the
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis
of compromise.
In support of his submission, learned State
counsel relied upon the judgment of Daxaben Vs. The
State of Gujarat and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in the
category of serious offences, which are to be treated
as crime against society and not against the
individual alone, only for the reasons that a
settlement has been arrived at between the parties,
therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for
any relief by this Court.
4. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner at
this stage seeks permission to withdraw the present
petition and prays for direction to the trial court to
decide the aforesaid case, as continuation of the trial
is not only stigmatic to the petitioner/accused but
2
2025:UHC:3150
even to the victim/prosecutrix and the family
members are also suffering.
5. The said request is not opposed by learned
counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of
judgments has observed that that Constitutional
Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from
fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases
pending before any other Courts. However, in view of
the special facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is of the considered view that the
trial court may be requested to decide this case
expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed
of with the request to the trial court to decide the
Special Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2024 pending in the
Court of Special Sessions Judge (POCSO), District
Pithoragarh as expeditiously as possible by recording
the statement of witnesses on basis of day to day
hearing.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the court
concerned for information/necessary compliance.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
25.04.2025
Mamta
3
[ad_1]
Source link