[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Nasir Hussain" As Well As The Entire on 24 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1189
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/212/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel
for respondent nos.2 & 3.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet,
cognizance/ summoning order dated
14.11.2024 passed by the learned
F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.
820 of 2024, "State of Uttarakhand vs.
Nasir Hussain" as well as the entire
criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case
on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that an F.I.R. was lodged on
10.07.2024 by respondent no.2, father of
the victim (respondent no.3), alleging that
the applicant had taken away his 17-year-
old minor daughter. Upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the
applicant. On the basis of the said charge-
sheet, the learned trial court took
cognizance and summoned the applicant
to face trial under Sections 137(2), 64 and
87 of the B.N.S. and Sections 5/6 of the
POCSO Act
2026:UHC:1189
6. Learned counsel further submits that
at the time of the alleged incident, the
victim was above 17 years of age. During
the pendency of the proceedings, she
attained majority and, with the consent of
both families, solemnized marriage with
the applicant on 28.03.2025. In support
thereof, reliance has been placed upon the
Nikahnama evidencing the marriage
between the applicant and respondent
no.3/victim. It is further submitted that 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 are discharging
their marital obligations.
7. Learned counsel for respondent nos.
2 and 3 does not dispute the aforesaid
submissions and affirms the factum of
marriage and settlement.
8. The applicant as well as respondent
nos. 2 and 3 are present before the Court
and have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. On interaction,
respondent no.2 (father of the victim)
submits that since the applicant and his
daughter have solemnized marriage and
are living together, he does not wish to
prosecute the applicant any further.
9. Learned State Counsel would oppose
the application on the ground that the
allegations pertain to serious and non-
compoundable offences. However, he does
not dispute the subsequent marriage
between the applicant and the victim, nor
2026:UHC:1189
the filing of the compromise application.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
11. The law regarding exercise of
inherent powers 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. It has
been 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 amount to abuse of the process of
law and defeat the ends of justice.
12. In the present case, though the
victim was below 18 years of age at the
time of the alleged occurrence and the
rigour of the POCSO Act is attracted,
subsequent developments 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.
The victim, now a major, along with her
father, has unequivocally expressed her
desire not to pursue the criminal
proceedings.
13. The continuation of the criminal
proceedings, in the peculiar facts and
2026:UHC:1189
circumstances of the present case, would
not only disturb the settled matrimonial
life of the parties but would also adversely
affect their future prospects. No useful
purpose would be served by permitting the
prosecution to continue when the victim
herself does not support the allegations
and the dispute has been amicably
resolved.
14. 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 the present
case is a fit one for exercising inherent
jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court.
15. Accordingly, the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
14.11.2024 passed by the learned
F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.
820 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand vs.
Nasir Hussain as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case, are
hereby quashed on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the
parties.
16. The C-528 application stands
allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.)
24.02.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1189
