POCSO and rape proceedings quashed after accused marries victim once she reaches legal marriage age, Uttarakhand High Court rules

The victim’s mother reported that her daughter, then approximately 15 years old, had gone to a nearby shop and failed to return; she suspected that Dilip had induced and taken her away.

Following investigation, police filed a charge-sheet alleging offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The trial was pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar.

Dilip sought to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and proceedings, submitting that he and the victim had married on 3 February 2026, after she attained the legally prescribed age for marriage, and were living together as spouses.

The parties appeared before the Court; the State opposed the application, while not disputing the marriage.

Whether the criminal proceedings alleging offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act could be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, having regard to the parties’ subsequent marriage and matrimonial relationship

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which distinguishes predominantly private disputes from serious offences with a significant societal impact, and on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, concerning the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings on the basis of a settlement.

The governing consideration identified was whether, in light of the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case, quashing would secure the ends of justice.

The Court noted that the parties had married after the victim attained the legally prescribed age for marriage, were living together as husband and wife, and wished to continue their matrimonial relationship; it also noted their families’ economic circumstances.

Having regard to these circumstances, the Court considered that continuing the prosecution would adversely affect their matrimonial life and concluded that quashing was appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.