Hostility of Witness and Marriage Claims Cannot Warrant Quashing in Serious POCSO and DNA-Positive Offences.

The applicant sought the quashing of FIR Crime No. 176/2025 and subsequent proceedings in Case No. SC/01/2026 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajendragram

The prosecution alleged that the applicant committed rape against a 15-year-old prosecutrix who had gone missing and was later recovered with him

The applicant contended that the parties had married, the prosecutrix lived with him as his wife, and material witnesses (PW/1, PW/2, and PW/3) had turned hostile during trial

The State noted that the prosecutrix had delivered a child, DNA results were positive, and her Section 164 statement supported the prosecution

1. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding for rape and POCSO offences when the prosecutrix and her parents have turned hostile during the trial.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, noting these must be used sparingly

Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [Section 376(2)(n) equivalent] and Sections 3/4 & 5/6 of the POCSO Act

The principle that the consent of a minor is legally immaterial and that evaluation of evidence falls within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court during a pending trial

The court reasoned that inherent jurisdiction is extraordinary and should not be used to interfere when the investigation discloses a prima facie cognizable offence

It observed that the prosecutrix was a minor (approx. 15 years old) at the time of the incident, and since the DNA report established the applicant as the biological father of the child, strong evidence existed despite the hostility of witnesses

The court held that non-compoundable and serious offences under BNS and POCSO cannot be quashed merely because witnesses turned hostile, especially as material witnesses were yet to be examined and any such evaluation by the High Court would result in "premature adjudication"

It held that this was not a fit case to invoke inherent powers to quash the FIR. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial and decide the case on its merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this order