Uttarakhand High Court
2026:Uhc:809 vs Prakash" on 11 February, 2026
2026:UHC:809
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/1120/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.
4. Present C-528 application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the chargesheet-, cognizance/ summoning order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2021, "State of Uttarakhand vs. Prakash"
as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially an F.I.R. was lodged on 16.11.2020 by the father of the victim alleging that the applicant had taken away his daughter. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended 2026:UHC:809 that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant of her own volition and without any coercion or inducement. She further stated that any physical relationship between them was consensual. It is submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was approximately 17 years and 3 months old and was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. 6.
It is further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the victim attained the age of majority and, with the consent of both families, solemnized marriage with the applicant on 11.12.2023. Out of the said wedlock, a child has been born in the year 2025. A compounding application supported by affidavits of the applicant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 (the victim and her father) has been filed, stating that they do not wish to pursue the prosecution any further as the parties are now living together peacefully and discharging their marital obligations.
7. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions and affirms the factum of marriage and settlement.
8. Learned State Counsel, while opposing the application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious offences, does not dispute the subsequent marriage between the applicant and the victim, the birth of a child from the said wedlock, and the filing of the compounding application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The law with regard to exercise of 2026:UHC:809 inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while heinous and serious offences having impact on society at large ordinarily should not be quashed on the basis of compromise, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and where continuation of proceedings would result in abuse of process of law and defeat the ends of justice.
11. In the present case, it is evident from the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had accompanied the applicant of her own free will. Though she was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and the rigour of the POCSO Act is attracted, the subsequent events cannot be ignored. The victim has since attained majority and has voluntarily solemnized marriage with the applicant. The parties are living together as husband and wife and have been blessed with a child. The victim herself, along with her father, has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the criminal proceedings.
12. The continuation of criminal proceedings in the peculiar facts of the present case would not only disturb the settled matrimonial life of the parties but 2026:UHC:809 would also adversely affect the welfare of the child born out of the wedlock. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue, particularly when the victim, now a major, does not support the allegations and the dispute has been amicably resolved.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
14. Accordingly, the cognizance/ summoning order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2021, "State of Uttarakhand vs. Prakash", as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed.
15. The C-528 application stands allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.) 11.02.2026 Mamta