Uttarakhand HC Quashes POCSO Case After Parties Settle, Though It Says Compromise Alone Cannot Justify Quashing Serious Charges

The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and proceedings in a POCSO special sessions trial arising from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 354, 384, 506 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

They relied on a settlement with respondent nos. 2 and 3, who stated that they did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

The applicants also contended that the FIR was a counterblast to proceedings they had brought against respondent no. 3 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The State opposed the compounding application.

Applicant nos. 1 and 2 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 appeared before the Court; applicant no. 3 was absent due to an advanced pregnancy and hospitalisation.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice; that jurisdiction is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and may, in appropriate cases, extend to non-compoundable offences.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court set out that quashing on the basis of compromise requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the dispute, its impact on society, and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice.

A compromise or complainant’s unwillingness to proceed is not, by itself, sufficient to quash serious offences, particularly offences under the POCSO Act.

The Court found that the settlement was voluntary and that respondent nos. 2 and 3 unequivocally wished not to pursue the case.

It noted the applicants’ contention that the FIR followed their Section 138 proceedings against respondent no. 3 and referred to the governing principles for compromise-based quashing.

However, although it stated that compromise alone cannot justify quashing serious offences, particularly POCSO offences, the Court did not explain how the gravity and societal impact of the allegations were weighed or why quashing was warranted in this case.

It nevertheless disposed of the compounding application in terms of the settlement and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

The criminal miscellaneous application and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.