Non-compoundable POCSO proceedings quashed after the victim and accused married and settled the dispute.

The applicant sought to quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 26 June 2024, and consequential proceedings in a case alleging offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC and Sections 5(B)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The complainant, the victim’s father, had alleged that his minor daughter was enticed away and abducted; the applicant acknowledged that she was 16 at the time of the alleged incident.

The applicant stated that they had been in a relationship, later married after she attained majority, and were living together.

The complainant and victim supported a joint application to settle the matter; the victim told the Court that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

The State opposed quashing on the basis that the alleged offences were serious and non-compoundable.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences, including POCSO offences, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process or contrary to the ends of justice.

The Court relied on its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and referred to Section 482 CrPC), which may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences.

It applied Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, on quashing proceedings where a dispute is overwhelmingly personal and the settlement serves the ends of justice; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, on assessing whether continuation would be futile and contrary to justice; and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, on the breadth of the inherent power and the need to consider the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case.

The Court treated the dispute as arising from a personal relationship and noted that the applicant and victim had married after attaining majority and were living together.

It accepted the complainant’s and victim’s statements that the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion.

Although the State emphasised the serious, non-compoundable nature of the alleged offences, the Court considered the parties’ settlement and the victim’s wish not to continue the case, and concluded that further proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and adversely affect their matrimonial life.

It allowed the joint compounding application and quashed the chargesheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 26 June 2024, and the consequential proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2024 arising from Case Crime No. 0080 of 2024; the application was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.