Criminal Proceedings Under POCSO and BNS Quashed Where Star Witnesses Resile and Allegations Result from Misunderstanding

The applicant sought quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance orders dated 15.11.2024 and 21.11.2024 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, in S.S.T. No. 62 of 2024.

The proceedings arose from an F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 (the victim's father) alleging that the applicant enticed away his 17-year-old daughter and established physical relations.

The applicant was charged under Sections 137(2)/64 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) and the complainant (PW-2) turned hostile, stating the victim left home voluntarily following a domestic dispute and that the applicant had actually advised her to return home.

The parties subsequently filed joint affidavits seeking to quash the proceedings based on a mutual compromise and the clarification that the F.I.R. was the result of a misunderstanding.

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable and serious offences when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.

2. Whether the continuation of industrial proceedings is justifiable when the star witnesses (victim and complainant) have resiled from the prosecution version during the trial.

Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.)/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, which establish that proceedings of a personal or private nature may be quashed upon compromise to secure the ends of justice.

The court further cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, holding that where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose an offence or where conviction is remote, proceedings should be quashed.

The court observed that although the allegations involved serious, non-compoundable offences under the POCSO Act and B.N.S., the dispute was essentially private and arose from a misunderstanding.

The court noted that the victim (PW-1) categorically denied any sexual assault or inducement in her testimony, stating her previous statements were made under pressure.

Since both the victim and the complainant (PW-2) exonerated the applicant during their examinations, the court reasoned that the foundation of the prosecution's case had collapsed.

Applying the principles from Bhajan Lal, the court determined that because the "star witnesses" had resiled, the possibility of a conviction was "extremely remote".

Consequently, allowing the trial to continue would result in a waste of judicial time and constitute an abuse of the court's process.

The application was allowed, and the charge-sheet, the cognizance orders dated 15.11.2024 and 21.11.2024, and the entire proceedings in S.S.T. No. 62 of 2024 were quashed.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.