Uttarakhand High Court
25 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 25 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5379
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 794 of 2025
25 June, 2025
Mohit --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna
Latwal, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present criminal miscellaneous application
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the applicant,
Mohit, seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of
Charge Sheet No. 01/2022 dated 23.04.2022 filed in
connection with FIR No. 0174 of 2022, registered at
Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, under
Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (POCSO Act). The proceedings are pending before
the court of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
2. This application is supported by affidavits and
a compounding application filed jointly by the Applicant
and Respondent No. 2 (the victim/victim), Payal, seeking
quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of a
mutual compromise entered into between the parties.
3. As per the contents of the FIR dated
28.04.2022, lodged by the brother of Respondent No.2, it
was alleged that the victim, who was residing at the
house of her elder sister in NanhedaAnnatpur village,
had been taken away by the applicant, Mohit, a resident
of the same village, by luring her. The complainant
suspected that his younger sister, who was under 18
years of age, had eloped with the Applicant.
Consequently, a case was registered against Mohit under
the provisions as mentioned above.
4. A charge sheet was filed on 23 April 2022, and
the Applicant was summoned by an order dated 4 May
2022 by the learned trial court. During the trial
proceedings, the victim, examined as PW-1 on 1
December 2022, turned hostile. She categorically denied
all allegations of abduction or sexual assault and stated
on oath that she had not been lured, enticed, or
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
physically abused by the applicant. She further deposed
that her earlier statements recorded under Sections 161
and 164 CrPC were given at the instructions of the police
and not out of her own free will.
5. Subsequently, it has come on record that the
Applicant and Respondent No. 2 solemnised their
marriage on 10.02.2024, which has been duly registered
with the Marriage Registration Officer, Haridwar, and are
now living together as husband and wife with a female
child born out of wedlock. In light of the marital status
and amicable relations, a joint compromise was entered
into by the parties, which has also been verified by the
District Legal Services Authority, Haridwar, through a
report dated 18.06.2025.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted
that the entire prosecution initiated against the Applicant
is a gross abuse of the process of law and is rendered
infructuous in view of the subsequent developments. It
was contended that the FIR was lodged under
misconception and family pressure, whereas no offence,
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
in fact, was committed by the Applicant.
8. It was submitted that the victim has herself
turned hostile and denied the allegations during her
deposition. Furthermore, it is submitted that the
Applicant and the victim are now legally wedded and
have a child together. In such circumstances, continuing
the trial would cause irreparable harm and hardship to
the Applicant and would not serve any fruitful purpose.
9. It was also urged that although the offences
are technically non-compoundable in nature, the
Supreme Court and various High Courts have quashed
criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or its
equivalent provisions where the parties have amicably
settled the matter, particularly in cases involving
continuing matrimonial harmony or where the
complainant has turned hostile.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
no. 2, endorsed the submissions made by the Applicant
and submitted that she does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further. She admitted that the
FIR was lodged under familial pressure and that she had
not been subjected to any coercion or sexual assault by
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
the applicant.
11. It was further submitted that both parties have
settled their differences and are living a peaceful and
content married life. A joint compounding application,
along with affidavits and supporting identification
documents, were also submitted to substantiate the
voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise. She
has also declared before the DLSA that she has no
objection to the quashing of proceedings.
12. Learned State Counsel submitted that the
offences alleged fall within the category of serious and
non-compoundable crimes. However, the State has left it
to the discretion of the Hon'ble Court to assess the
implications of the compromise and exercise its inherent
powers, if deemed appropriate, considering the factual
matrix and the stand taken by the victim.
13. The present case presents a classic example of
how changing social and personal circumstances after
the registration of a criminal case can compel this Court
to consider quashing the proceedings in the larger
interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the judicial
process.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
14. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of
an FIR lodged by the complainant-brother of Respondent
No. 2, alleging kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. The
FIR invoked serious charges under Sections 363, 366(A),
376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO
Act.
15. It is evident that the FIR was registered with
an apprehension based on circumstantial absence and
the victim's staying away from her family without any
formal intimation. The charge sheet followed, and the
trial commenced. However, during the trial, the most
critical prosecution witness, the victim herself, recanted
from her earlier statements and completely denied the
allegations in her deposition.
16. The victim, examined on 01.12.2022, clearly
stated that she was neither enticed by the applicant nor
subjected to any sexual act or physical exploitation. She
disowned the contents of her statement under Section
164 CrPC, asserting that it was recorded at the police's
behest and was not voluntary. She refused to
acknowledge any physical or romantic relationship with
the applicant at the time in question.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
17. In fact, she categorically stated that she
neither went with the Applicant nor had any form of
sexual contact with him. Her hostile testimony nullifies
the very substratum of the State' case.
18. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the
offences alleged, particularly under the POCSO Act and
Section 376(2)(n) IPC, are grave in nature and fall within
the category of non-compoundable offences. However, it
is equally true that the entire prosecution case hinges on
the testimony of the victim, who has turned completely
hostile. Her stand before the trial court casts serious
doubt on the veracity of the State's case. In such
circumstances, forcing the continuation of the criminal
trial will only serve a ritualistic function, with no realistic
probability of conviction.
19. Taken together, these contradictions in
testimony, unreliable age verification, lack of medical
evidence, and procedural omissions seriously undermine
the State's case. Continuing the criminal proceedings in
these circumstances would serve no meaningful purpose
and amount to an abuse of the judicial process,
particularly since the parties have since married and are
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
residing peacefully with their child.
20. This Court has also taken note of the
evidentiary record and deposition of prosecution
witnesses, which reflect significant procedural lapses and
inconsistencies that undermine the State's case. The
deposition of Headmaster-in-charge of Government
Primary School, Bhattipur, raises serious doubts about
the authenticity of the victim's age. She categorically
stated that no birth certificate of the victim was
submitted by her guardian at the time of admission, nor
is it registered in the school records. She further
admitted that the child's name appears twice, overwritten
in red ink, and that corrections had been made in the
date of birth column, but she was unaware of who had
made those alterations. The original date of birth as per
the school's admission register is stated to be
20.07.2004, but the lack of supporting documentation
and corrections in the register cast doubt on the
reliability of that entry.
21. The brother of the victim, who is also the
complainant in the present case, was likewise declared
hostile during the trial. He admitted to having signed the
8
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
complaint without reading its contents and stated that it
was incorrect to suggest that the accused had taken the
victim away. He further confirmed that there had been a
quarrel between the victim and her elder sister, and it
was following this incident that the victim left home.
These statements significantly weaken the prosecution's
version of forceful abduction or enticement.
22. The testimony of the investigating officers,
namely Sub-Inspector, further reveals lapses in the
conduct of the investigation. SI Praveen Bisht admitted
that the victim herself came to the police station on 4
March 2022 and that he recorded her statement on the
same day. However, he did not question the victim's
family in detail, nor recall who wrote the FIR. He also
confirmed that no blood alcohol concentration test of the
victim was conducted, despite her statement alleging
unconsciousness after consuming tea. W/SI Anjana
Chauhan, who later took over the investigation, deposed
that although she sent the victim for medical
examination and got her statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, she could not remember key details
such as who accompanied the victim, what time medical
examination occurred, or whether names of
9
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
accompanying persons were recorded in the CD. She also
admitted that no DNA report had been received before
the chargesheet was filed and that she did not seal the
accused's clothes or subject him to medical examination
in relation to the allegations.
23. The medical evidence also does not corroborate
the offence. Dr. Pallavi Verma, who conducted the
medical examination on 05.03.2022, stated that the
victim had no external or internal injuries and that the
supplementary report did not detect any live or dead
sperm. The doctor did not give any conclusive opinion
regarding sexual assault. According to her deposition, the
victim alleged she had consumed tea given by the
accused and lost consciousness and later found herself
at the residence of the accused's relatives. The victim
repeatedly said she could not recall what had happened
to her, raising doubt as to whether any offence was
committed at all.
24. Taken together, these contradictions in
testimony, unreliable age verification, lack of medical
evidence, and procedural omissions seriously undermine
the State's case. Continuing the criminal proceedings in
10
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
such circumstances would serve no meaningful purpose
and amount to abuse of the judicial process, particularly
when the parties have since married and are residing
peacefully with their child.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab", (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that in
appropriate cases involving offences not heinous in
nature and where the victim and accused have resolved
their differences, the High Court may exercise inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceedings.
26. In the present case, the victim's voluntary
marriage to the Applicant, subsequent cohabitation, and
the birth of a child from the union demonstrate that she
has exercised clear autonomy and agency over her life
choices. The victim's declaration in court that the FIR
was filed under pressure and that no offence occurred
supports the contention that the continuation of
prosecution would be a travesty rather than a triumph of
justice.
27. The victim in this case, now an adult woman,
is not merely a silent recipient of justice; she is also a
11
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
participant in its administration. She has, voluntarily,
and repeatedly stated both in court and in her affidavit
that the relationship with the applicant was not
exploitative. She has now solemnised marriage with the
applicant, and they are raising a child together. Her well-
being, future stability, and social dignity are now
intimately linked with the preservation of this family unit.
28. To disrupt that unit at this stage by allowing
the trial to continue, or worse, by subjecting the
applicant to incarceration, would not merely punish the
accused; it would destabilise the life of the victim and
permanently impair the emotional and financial security
of their newborn child. In effect, the very person the law
intended to protect would become the principal sufferer.
29. This Court also finds substantial guidance in
the recent and constitutionally significant judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Right to Privacy of
Adolescents, 2024 SCC Online SC 5486, where the Apex
Court, while dealing with a conviction under the POCSO
Act involving a consensual adolescent relationship,
emphasized that the law must be interpreted and applied
not in mechanical rigidity, but in alignment with lived
12
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
realities, constitutional morality, and the principle of
complete justice under Article 142. The Supreme Court,
taking into account the long-term cohabitation of the
victim with the accused, the birth of a child, the failure of
the State to protect or rehabilitate the victim, and the
irreversible social and economic integration between the
parties, observed:
"In law, we have no option but to sentence the
accused and send him to jail for undergoing the
minimum punishment prescribed by the Statute.
However, in this case, the society, the family of the
victim and the legal system have done enough
injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to
enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add
to the injustice done to the victim by sending her
husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes
to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order
to do real justice to the victim, the only option
left before us is to ensure that the accused is
not separated from the victim. The State and the
society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated
till the family settles down in all respects."
30. Such an empathetic and realistic reading of
justice, grounded in the right to dignity under Article 21
of the Constitution, resonates profoundly with the facts
before this Court. Like the case considered therein, the
present matter involves not a transient or casual affair
but a stable, matrimonial relationship, producing a child
whose welfare is now tied to the continuity of this union.
13
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
31. It would be a paradox if the law, intended to
protect the girl child, were to be used in a manner that
destabilises her adulthood, denies her agency, and
inflicts trauma upon her young child. In our
constitutional scheme, justice must not merely punish, it
must protect, restore, and uplift. The woman is not
merely a witness or complainant; she is also a citizen, a
wife, a mother, and a stakeholder in her own future.
32. The same has been iterated in "B.P.Achala
Anand v. S. Appi Reddy", (2005) 3 SCC 313, where the
Hon'ble SC observed that -
"The law does not remain static. It does not operate
in a vacuum. As social norms and values change,
laws too have to be reinterpreted, and recast. Law
is really a dynamic instrument fashioned by society
for the purposes of achieving harmonious
adjustment, human relations by elimination of
social tensions and conflicts."
33. Therefore, in light of the evolving constitutional
jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's
authoritative pronouncements, this Court deems it
necessary to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
the machinery of justice from being misused in a way
that causes further injury to the woman and child the
14
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
law is sworn to protect.
34. Recently, the Kerala High Court while
quashing two cases under the POCSO Act where the
accused and victims got married, after relying on catena
of judgements, observed that though generally POCSO
offences cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement
between parties, however, in "extreme mitigating
circumstances", not quashing the proceedings may result
in injustice.
"Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated by
quashing the same, there will be utter chaos,
confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim who
married the accused, and who is leading a happy life.
In other words, the life of the victim, the accused and
the child, if any, in that relationship will be ruined.
Per contra, If the offence is quashed, it will bring in
harmony, peace and happiness, thus promoting their
family life."
35. From a practical perspective, compelling
married parties to proceed with trial constitutes an abuse
of judicial process. When the primary witness is now the
accused's spouse, her testimony becomes unreliable due
to the inherent conflict of interest in testifying against her
husband. The marital relationship creates natural
reluctance to provide incriminating evidence, making
successful prosecution extremely unlikely and rendering
15
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
the proceedings futile.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh
v. State of Punjab: 2012(1) SCC 10, opined that -
"Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary
remedies. While dealing with an unprecedented
case, the Court has to innovate the law and may
also pass an unconventional order keeping in
mind that an extraordinary fact situation requires
extraordinary measures."
37. The Hon'ble court also placed reliance on B.P.
Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 986,
where in the Supreme Court observed:
"Unusual fact situation posing issues for resolution
is an opportunity for innovation. Law, as
administered by Courts, transforms into justice."
38. This Court also takes note of the decision
rendered by a coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court in
Crl. Misc. Application No. 2212 of 2023, titled Asif v.
State of Uttarakhand & Another, decided by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Pankaj Purohit on 25.03.2025, wherein
proceedings under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections
5/6 of the POCSO Act were quashedbetween the accused
and the victim, who were by then married and
cohabiting.
16
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
39. The Court in that matter, after carefully
considering the victim's statement, her consent to the
compromise, and the subsisting marriage between the
parties, held that continuation of prosecution would be
counterproductive and detrimental to the peace and
dignity of the victim, now a legally competent adult.
Despite the presence of POCSO charges, the coordinate
bench exercised discretion to quash, keeping in mind the
evolving personal circumstances and the spirit of
complete justice.
40. This Court finds itself in a similar factual
scenario. In view of the ratio adopted by the coordinate
bench, and considering the constitutional obligation to
ensure substantive justice over mere procedural
formality, this Court sees no legal impediment in
applying the same approach.
41. It is now well-settled in jurisprudence that no
universal formula can be applied when dealing with cases
under the POCSO Act. Each case is shaped by its own
factual matrix and social context and must be examined
with sensitivity to those nuances. To assert, as a matter
of blanket rule, that quashing of proceedings is
17
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5379
impermissible merely because a POCSO offence is
alleged, would be an over-simplification of the law.
Courts are duty-bound to engage with the substance of
the allegations, the conduct of the parties, and the larger
ends of justice, rather than adopting an inflexible or
doctrinaire approach.
ORDER
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that
ends of justice would be met if the entire proceedings
against the Applicant are hereby quashed.
Given the above, the Charge Sheet No.01 of
2022 dated 23.04.2022 filed in F.I.R. No. 0174 of 2022
under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC and 5(l)/6 of
POCSO Act, Thana- Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and
summoning order dated 04.05.2022, pending in the court
of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO), Haridwar, are hereby quashed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
25.06.2025
Akash
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
