Facts
The applicant was accused of enticing away a 17-year-old minor on 28.03.2021, leading to an FIR lodged by the victim's mother
Source reference: para. 5Following an investigation, the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, took cognizance on 06.07.2021 for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act
Source reference: para. 4-5At the time of the incident, the applicant was also a juvenile
Source reference: para. 5During the trial, the victim (PW-2) testified that the relationship was consensual and no force was used
Source reference: para. 6Since then, both parties attained majority, solemnized their marriage on 12.07.2023, and have a child born on 02.05.2025
Source reference: para. 6, 10The complainant mother and the victim appeared before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings based on a compromise, stating the FIR was a result of misunderstanding
Source reference: para. 8Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable and serious offenses like Rape and POCSO on the basis of a compromise
Source reference: para. 112. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law given the subsequent marriage and settled matrimonial life of the parties
Source reference: para. 14-15Law Applied
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice
Source reference: para. 11Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which allows quashing if parties have amicably resolved disputes and proceedings serve no purpose
Source reference: para. 12Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasizes preventing extreme injustice despite settlements
Source reference: para. 12Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat regarding the summary of principles for Section 482
Source reference: para. 13State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, which notes that while serious offenses are generally not quashed, peculiar facts of a case can warrant such an exercise
Source reference: para. 13Reasoning
The court observed that although the charges under the IPC and POCSO Act are serious, the factual matrix had fundamentally changed since the inception of the case.
Source reference: para. 14The court noted that the victim (now a major) testified that she accompanied the applicant voluntarily and denied any forcible physical relationship
Source reference: para. 6, 14The court found that the applicant and victim are now legally married and have a child
Source reference: para. 14Applying the cited precedents, the court reasoned that forcing the husband to face trial for a "consensual love relationship" from their youth would "disturb the settled matrimonial life" and "adversely affect the future and welfare of their minor child"
Source reference: para. 14The court determined that the legal proceedings had become a futility and any further prosecution would be an abuse of process
Source reference: para. 15Holding
The High Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that securing the ends of justice outweighs the technical requirement of trial in this specific marital context.
The court allowed the C-482 application and quashed the chargesheet, the cognizance/challani report dated 06.07.2021, and the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 356 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur
Source reference: para. 16All pending applications were disposed of
Source reference: para. 17Original Court PDF
SONU SARKARvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in