SURJEET vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2279/2026

Surjeet
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuali, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Ms. Poonam Rauthan, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 and 3.
4. Present application has been filed
seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.06.2024 passed by
learned Fast Track Court/Special Court
(POCSO)/Additional District Judge,
Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.87
of 2024 for the offence punishable under
Section 363, 366-A and 376 I.P.C. and
Section 5 ( B )/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012
pending in the court of learned Fast
Track Court/Additional District Judge
POCSO, Dehradun arising out of Case
Crime No.0080 of 2024 as well as the
consequential proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by the father of the victim, alleging
therein that his minor daughter had been
enticed away and forcibly abducted by the
applicant; that, at the time of the alleged
incident, the victim was a minor; that,
upon completion of the investigation, the
investigating agency submitted a charge-
sheet against the applicant, on the basis
of which the learned trial court took
cognizance of the offence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant
is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case; that, the
applicant and the victim were in a love
relationship and that the victim, of her
own free will, had accompanied the
applicant, however, he fairly admits that
the victim was 16 years of age at the time
of the alleged incident.
7. He would further submit that the
victim's date of birth is 01.02.2006 and
that, upon attaining the marriageable
age, the applicant and the victim
solemnized their marriage with the
consent of their respective parents, in
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals;
that, their marriage was subsequently
registered under the Uniform Civil Code
(U.C.C.), and a copy of the marriage
certificate has been annexed. He would
further submit that the applicant and the
victim are presently living together
happily as husband and wife and are

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
discharging their matrimonial obligations.
8. It is next contended that the
applicant and respondent nos.2 and 3
have now amicably settled their dispute
and do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. In this regard, a
joint compounding application (I.A. No.1
of 2026) duly supported by the affidavits
of the applicant as well as respondent
nos.2 and 3 has been filed before this
Court stating that the matter has been
resolved amicably and that the
complainant does not intend to prosecute
the applicant any further.

9. The applicant and the respondents
are present in person before the Court
and have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. Upon interaction, the
victim has stated that the dispute has
been amicably settled, that their marriage
has been solemnized with the consent of
their families, and that they are presently
residing together peacefully. She has
further stated that she does not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings and has
no objection to their quashing.
10. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application, contending that the
allegations pertain to serious and non-
compoundable offences, particularly
those punishable under the POCSO Act.
However, he does not dispute the factum
of marriage between the applicant and
the victim or the filing of the joint
compounding application, duly supported

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
by their respective affidavits.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
12. From the material placed before this
Court, it appears that the dispute
between the parties had arisen in the
backdrop of a personal relationship
between the applicant and respondents. It
is not disputed that the parties have now
solemnized marriage after attaining
majority and are living together as
husband and wife.
13. The presence of the complainant and
the victim before this Court and their
categorical statements leave no doubt
that the compromise arrived at between
the parties is voluntary, genuine and
without any coercion or undue influence.
14. It is true that the offences alleged are
non-compoundable. However, it is well
settled that the High Court, in exercise of
its inherent powers under 582 B.N.S.S.,
may quash criminal proceedings even in
respect of non-compoundable offences, if
the Court is satisfied that the dispute is
essentially of a personal nature and that
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of
law.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303 has held that the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction where the dispute

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
between the parties is overwhelmingly
personal or matrimonial in nature and
the parties have resolved their dispute
amicably, provided that such exercise of
power would secure the ends of justice.
Similarly, in Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down the
principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
the basis of compromise and held that the
Court must consider whether the
continuation of criminal proceedings
would be futile and would not serve the
ends of justice. Further, in Parbatbhai
Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC
641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is of wide amplitude
and may be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings in order to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court or to secure the
ends of justice, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the
circumstances of the case.
16. In the present case, the Court finds
that the applicant and respondent
no.3/victim are now lawfully married and
are living together. The complainant as
well as the victim have clearly stated that
they do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. In such
circumstances, continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve no

UKHC010185502026

2026:UHC:9498
fruitful purpose and would adversely
affect the matrimonial life of the parties.
17. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, this
Court is of the view that this is a fit case
for exercising the inherent powers to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court.
18. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.
19. Consequently, the chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
26.06.2024 passed by learned Fast Track
Court/Special Court (POCSO)/Additional
District Judge, Dehradun in Special
Sessions Trial No.87 of 2024 pending in
the court of learned Fast Track
Court/Additional District Judge POCSO,
Dehradun arising out of Case Crime
No.0080 of 2024 are hereby quashed.
20. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.


MAMTA
RANI

(Alok Mahra J.)
15.10.2026

Mamta

Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430
ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6891
1ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.17 11:01:18 +05'30'