"Continuance Of Trial Will Spoil Life of Two Families": Uttarakhand HC Drops POCSO case
The High Court compounded the offences and dropped the trial against the accused after noting that the trial will ultimately result in spoiling two units of family.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court recently dropped a Special Trial under the POCSO Act while allowing the compounding application. The court noted that it will absolutely be a fruitless exercise to continue with the aforesaid special sessions trial when the parties have resolved their dispute independently.
The trial pertains to a case registered against the accused in 2020 for abducting a minor girl and compelling her to marry. Allegation were also leveled against the accused for raping the minor and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault against her. The accused was booked under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Later on, an application was filed by the accused and the complainant for compounding. The complainant informed the court she does not want to prosecute the accused any further.
The court in its judgment noted that though the said offenses were not compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPc, the court could not be ignorant of the fact that the accused had married his maternal uncle’s daughter and the complainant had also married another man.
Further, both of them, are independently and happily discharging their matrimonial obligations, and continuance of trial will ultimately result in spoiling two units of family, the court observed.
Therefore, the court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPc dropped the special trial and noted:
“In that eventuality, while exercising the inherent powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C, this Court is of the view that continuance of the Special Session Trial No. 45 of 2020, “State Vs. Anees”, would ultimately result into spoiling of the life of two families, and particularly when the victim-respondent no.2, has made a statement before this Court, that she does not intends to prosecute the present applicant any further”.
Further while terming the trial as fruitless because the complainant was married and residing separately the court noted:
“Owing to the aforesaid fact that she too has already married and, is residing separately, this Court is of the view that it will absolutely be a fruitless exercise to continue with the aforesaid special sessions trial, when the parties have resolved their dispute independently.”