High Court Quashes POCSO and Rape Proceedings Following Amicable Settlement and Marriage of Parties.

On January 12, 2024, an FIR was registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind, at the instance of the prosecutrix’s mother, alleging that the petitioner had abducted the prosecutrix.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 and 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

Subsequently, the petitioner and the prosecutrix (respondent No. 2) married out of their own free will and are living together at their matrimonial home.

The parties filed compromise applications (I.A. Nos. 3899/2026 and 3900/2026) stating they had resolved the dispute.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable and serious offences like rape and POCSO when the parties have subsequently married and settled the dispute amicably.

The court relied on Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the distinction between compounding and quashing.

It further applied principles from Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing that courts must consider whether a settlement will result in mutual harmony.

It also cited State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, which established that while courts should be wary of quashing heinous crimes, they may do so in matrimonial or personal disputes where the dispute is resolved.

The court also noted judicial empathy toward cases where a "FILE" contains a "LIFE".

The Court observed that the petitioner and the prosecutrix are now a married couple living together peacefully.

While acknowledging that offences like rape are generally categorized as serious and non-private under the Laxmi Narayan framework, the Court emphasized that the "pulse" of the case must be felt, noting that the continuation of criminal proceedings would likely disrupt the matrimonial harmony and result in a futile exercise.

Since the prosecutrix and her mother voluntarily entered into a compromise verified by the Registrar, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the FIR rather than pursuing a wasteful trial that would likely not lead to conviction in light of the settlement.

The Court quashed FIR No. 06/2024 (Police Station Ater) for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4, 5/6 POCSO Act, along with all consequential proceedings including Case No. 09/2024 S.C.

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.