Uttarakhand High Court
C528/2312/2025 on 12 February, 2026
2026:UHC:844
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
No.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C528/2312/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Ketan Aswal, 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 charge-sheet as well as the summoning/cognizance order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge/POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2024 (Case Crime No. 008 of 2024), under Sections 64, 87, 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.), Sections 5(L), 6, 16, 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 3(2)(v)A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with the entire consequential criminal proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that respondent no.2 lodged a missing report stating that her daughter (respondent no.3), aged about 17 years and 6 months, had gone to Lohaghat for preparation of her Aadhaar Card and did not return home. During investigation, the victim was recovered from Pithoragarh along with the applicants. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet against the applicants under the 2026:UHC:844 aforesaid provisions. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the court below took cognizance and framed charges against applicant no.1 under Sections 64, 87, 137(2) B.N.S., Sections 5(L), 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v)A of the S.C./S.T. Act, and against the co- applicant under Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that the prosecution case is wholly unsustainable. The victim (respondent no.3), examined as PW-1 before the trial court, categorically stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicants from Lohaghat to Pithoragarh and stayed there for two days, and that no physical relations were established with her by the applicants. It is further submitted that upon recovery, the victim was medically examined. The medical report records no external or internal injuries; the UPT test was negative; and no opinion of sexual assault or rape was given by the Medical Officer. It is thus contended that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 64 B.N.S. and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act are not made out.
7. During pendency of the proceedings, a compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) supported by affidavits of the applicants, respondent no.2 (mother/complainant) and respondent no.3 (victim) has been filed stating that the matter has been amicably settled and they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.
8. The applicants as well as respondent nos.2 and 3 are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, 2026:UHC:844 respondent nos.2 and 3 have categorically stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, and that they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed.
9. Learned State counsel opposes the compounding application on the ground that the offences under the POCSO Act and the S.C./S.T. Act are non- compoundable and are serious in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties nor the statement made by the victim before the trial court.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. At the outset, it is well settled that offences under the POCSO Act and the S.C./S.T. Act are non-compoundable. However, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of wide amplitude and can be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in appropriate cases, even non-compoundable offences can be quashed if the dispute is essentially private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court laid down guiding principles for quashing on the basis of compromise and observed that the High Court must examine the nature and gravity of the offence; whether the offence has serious societal impact; whether the 2026:UHC:844 compromise is genuine and voluntary; whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose.
13. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences having serious impact on society ordinarily should not be quashed on the basis of compromise; however, the Court must examine the factual matrix of each case.
14. In the present case, the victim, in her deposition as PW-1, has not supported the prosecution case of sexual assault and has categorically stated that no physical relationship was established. The medical evidence does not indicate any sign of sexual assault. The victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicants. The complainant as well as the victim have entered into a voluntary compromise and do not wish to pursue the matter further. There is no material on record to demonstrate any element of force, coercion or caste-based atrocity attracting the rigours of Section 3(2)(v)A of the S.C./S.T. Act.
15. This Court is conscious of the object of the POCSO Act and the S.C./S.T. Act, which are special legislations enacted to protect vulnerable sections of society. However, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to advance the cause of justice. Where the prosecutrix herself does not support the allegations and the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case, and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the possibility of conviction becomes remote and bleak.
2026:UHC:844
16. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is also allowed. The charge- sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge/POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2024 (Case Crime No. 008 of 2024), under Sections 64, 87, 137(2) of B.N.S., Sections 5(L), 6, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v)A of the S.C./S.T. Act, along with the entire consequential criminal proceedings, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[ (Alok Mahra, J.) 12.02.2026 Mamta