Quashing of POCSO and Rape FIR permissible to protect family life where parties have married and settled.

An FIR was registered in 2019 under Section 363 IPC following a report by the mother (Respondent No. 3) that her daughter (Respondent No. 2) was missing.

After recovery, the daughter stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had voluntarily accompanied and married the Petitioner, and was pregnant.

Despite this, as she was a minor at the time of elopement, a charge-sheet was filed adding Sections 366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

During the trial, both the victim and her mother turned hostile, providing no incriminating evidence.

The parties, who have lived together for over six years and have three children, sought quashing of the FIR based on a compromise to secure their family’s peace.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable, heinous offences like Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act based on a settlement when the parties have married and established a family.

Whether the continuation of trial serves any meaningful purpose when the key witnesses have turned hostile and the chance of conviction is remote.

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

It relied on *Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.* (2014), which allows quashing non-compoundable cases if the prospect of conviction is remote and quashing serves the ends of justice.

It further cited *Madhukar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra* (2025), noting that while Section 376 IPC is heinous, the Court’s power is not constrained by rigid formulas and must be exercised based on specific facts.

References were also made to *XXX v. State of Kerala* (2026) and *Afsar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand* (2026) regarding the quashing of POCSO proceedings to maintain matrimonial harmony.

The Court observed that while sexual offences are grave, the "justice delivery system cannot turn a blind eye" to the reality of the parties' current lives.

The Court interacted with the respondents in chambers, confirming that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are happily married with three children and that the mother regards the Petitioner as a son.

Given that the prosecutrix and her mother have already testified and turned hostile, the Court reasoned that the "quest for truth" in this trial would likely result in acquittal.

The Court emphasized that "triumph of justice" in this specific context meant preventing the "inexorable apprehension and trauma" caused by pending litigation, rather than uprooting a settled family for a trial with a bleak outcome.

Consequently, the Court exercised its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR No. 0235/2019, P.S. Karawal Nagar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom to "secure the ends of justice".

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.