Uttarakhand High Court quashes POCSO and rape case after accused marries victim who was a minor at the time of the alleged offence

The applicant sought to quash the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 24 August 2024, and the resulting proceedings for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC and Sections 5(B)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The victim’s date of birth was recorded as 12 December 2007, and she was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

In statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she said that she and the applicant were in a relationship and that she had left home voluntarily.

The applicant and victim later married after she attained majority.

The victim and her mother filed affidavits supporting the compromise and appeared before the Court, stating that they did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

The State opposed quashing because the alleged offences were serious and non-compoundable.

1. Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for non-compoundable IPC and POCSO offences on the basis of a compromise between the applicant, the victim and her mother.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the prosecution would serve the ends of justice or amount to an abuse of process.

The Court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is essentially personal, the parties have genuinely resolved it, and quashing would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

It cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, on quashing disputes overwhelmingly personal or matrimonial in nature; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, on assessing whether continuation would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice; and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, on the breadth and purpose of the High Court’s inherent powers.

The judgment refers to the power as being under “Section 582 B.N.S.S.” and also discusses Section 482 CrPC.

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

It accepted the statements made in Court by the victim and her mother as establishing that the compromise was voluntary and that neither wished to pursue the case.

Although the offences were non-compoundable and the State opposed the application, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose and could adversely affect the couple’s matrimonial life and their child’s future.

It quashed the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 24 August 2024, and the entire criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 159 of 2023.

The C-528 application was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.