Gujarat HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Victim’s Brother, Citing Her Unwillingness To Proceed

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered at Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad, and the consequential POCSO proceedings. The FIR invoked Sections 75(2), 115(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 18 of the POCSO Act; a charge-sheet had been filed

The complainant, the petitioner’s mother, stated by affidavit that the petitioner was her son, that the victim was her daughter, and that she consented to quashing. The Court also noted the victim’s affidavit and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and recorded that she was unwilling to proceed

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 75(2), 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 18 of the POCSO Act

In assessing quashing, it relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, Manoj Sharma v. State, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, their continuation would amount to an abuse of process and quashing is required to secure the ends of justice

The Court considered the settlement affidavit, the victim’s statement and affidavit, and the APP’s submission that the victim was unwilling to proceed

Applying the cited authorities, it concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and would serve no fruitful purpose; quashing was therefore necessary to secure the ends of justice

The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, registered as C.R. No. 11191003260438/2026 at Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad, together with all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner