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