The Allahabad High Court said that sexual offences against children are among the most heinous crimes, leaving deep and lasting scars on the victims. The psychological effects of such trauma are profound and multifaceted, impacting a child’s mental health, emotional stability, and social interactions and affect every aspect of their lives.
A Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar refused to quash a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the minor victim’s family.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the Criminal Case under Sections 323, 328, 377, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67-B of Information Technology Act, 2000, P.S Kotwali, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that dispute between the parties is related to money transaction. The father of the victim had borrowed Rs 40,000 from the applicant to purchase buffalo in January 2021 with assurance to return the same within a period of next three months and it was also assured by the victim’s father that he would provide 2 litres of milk to the applicant everyday.
He next submitted that neither the borrowed money was returned nor the milk was provided and when the applicant demanded money, he was slapped with a criminal case by the victim’s father.
The application has been filed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an affidavit of compromise has also been filed. Since parties have settled the dispute, opposite party no 2 does not want to proceed with the trial, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.
Per-contra, AGA and counsel for the opposite party no 2 have opposed the application and submitted that there are serious allegations of committing unnatural sex by the applicant with a boy aged about 16 years and drawn the attention of the Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The Court noted that,
On perusal of the statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it transpires that the victim was 16 years old at the time of the registration of FIR and the applicant had been exploiting the victim for the last three years, meaning when the victim was then only 13 years old. The first incident of unnatural sex was committed upon the victim by giving the sedatives in cold drink and the applicant recorded the act on his mobile phone, thereafter the child was blackmailed for next three years by threatening the victim to viral the video in case the victim would not compromise. The victim was also scolded, thrashed and given beatings by the applicant.
Section 3 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offices, Act, 2012 deals with penetrative sexual assaults and if the accused penetrates his penis, to any extend, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person, whereas Section 4 provides for the punishment who commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which shall not be 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. And if a child is below 16 years of age shall be punished with imprisonment not less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder for natural life of that person.
“The victim’s 164 Cr.P.C statement suggests that he was put to unnatural sex by the applicant when he was 13 years old and the victim mustered courage to register FIR against the applicant only after three years because of fear of exposure to the society, as the applicant had recorded the incident in his mobile phone and has physically assaulted. The offense is serious and repercussions are writ large on the psychology and behaviour pattern of the child, additionally, if the allegations are proved then the applicant may be awarded life imprisonment up to natural life. The applicant is a serial sodomist and was found involved in two other separate and distinct cases, therefore, keeping in view the severity of the punishment and menace of exploitation of child by the resourceful person, the Court do not find any force in the applicant’s case even though two distinct and separate case of similar nature are quashed by the coordinate Bench on the basis of compromise,” the Court observed while dismissing the application.