Uttarakhand High Court
Saurabh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1399 of 2023
Saurabh Kumar ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, AGA for the State.
Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.(Oral)
By means of the present C-482 application, the
applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings in
Special Sessions Trial No. 50/ 2022, State Vs Saurabh
Kumar, pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Almora,
arising out of FIR no. 01/ 2022, under Sections 363, 366-A,
376 (3) of the IPC and Section 5 (l)/ 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, Challani Thana Revenue
Area Doba, District Almora; as well as Charge sheet no. 01/
2022 dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure No.5), under Sections
363, 366-A, 376 (3) of the IPC and Section 5 (l)/ 6 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Challani
Thana Revenue Area Doba, District Almora; as well as FIR
No.01/2022 dated 31.05.2022, (Annexure No.01) Challani
Thana Revenue Area Doba, District Almora and all
consequential proceedings.
2. The applicant -Saurabh Kumar along with Mr.
Rajpal Singh (father of the applicant) is present in person
2
duly identified by Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel
for the applicant. Mr. Girish Lal and Ms. Bhawna (victim)
both of whom are present in person duly identified by Ms.
Mamta Joshi, counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Akshay
Latwal, learned AGA for the State.
3. Along with the Criminal Misc. Application,
Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2023) has been filed
with the prayer for permitting the parties to compound the
offence between the parties and quash the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid Special Sessions Trial. The said
compounding application is duly supported by the affidavit
of Mr. Rajpal Singh (father of the applicant) since at that
relevant time, Mr. Saurabh Kumar (applicant) was in jail.
An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.2
(informant) in support of the compounding application.
4. In the aforesaid affidavits, the applicant as well as
the respondent no.2 have stated that the applicant and the
victim were in love with each other and had thereafter
started staying together as husband and wife. The victim did
not want to prosecute the applicant at any time. Now the
Respondent no. 2 i.e. father of the victim, is agreeable to the
marriage between the parties and does not want to
prosecute the above case against the applicant. It is further
stated that unless the composition is not accepted, it will be
a futile exercise at court below. It has further been stated
that the settlement is voluntary and without any pressure or
3
coercion. The continuation of criminal proceeding will
hamper the future matrimonial life of the deponent and the
victim. The respondent no.2 does not desire to proceed with
the instant case against the applicant and desires that the
parties get married with each other.
5. Later on, an affidavit dated 10.03.2025 has been
filed on behalf of the victim in which she has stated that the
victim and the applicant have decided and are ready to
marry with each other. Although at the time of incident, the
deponent was minor and now she has attained the age of
majority inasmuch as her date of birth is 28.11.2006. The
copy of the High School Mark-Sheet has been placed on
record as Annexure No.1 to her affidavit. It has been further
mentioned in the affidavit that the deponent has settled her
all disputes with the applicant and is ready to compound the
offence with the permission of this Court. Since the
deponent and the applicant are ready to marry with each
other, therefore, no fruitful purpose would serve if the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.01 of 2022 would be
allowed to continue.
6. Learned AGA for the State would submit that
since it is a matter, inter alia, arising out of POCSO
proceedings, hence all the sections for the same are non
compoundable. It has further been stated that since at the
time of incident, the victim was minor there is no question of
4
compounding the offences. On this, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed on record the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
614, wherein, in identical circumstances, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to quash the proceedings
of Sessions Trial No.1332 of 2021, pending before the
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi. The relevant paras 6
to 9 of the said judgment are being quoted hereunder:-
“6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the
third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that
she is happily married to the appellant and they have
been residing together. She has disclosed her date of
birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary
School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’,
the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as
20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during
the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date
of commission of the offence, the age of the third
respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There
are documents on record to show that the date of birth of
the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore,
when the offence was allegedly committed in September,
2016 she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are
happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing
the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the
appellant, the third respondent and their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the
marriage certificate was placed on record before the High
Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also
recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High
Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on
the ground of settlement, has observed that the
application for dropping criminal proceedings on the
basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court.
The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the
Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in
fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the
parties have been forced to come to this Court.
5
9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016
registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi
and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021
pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi
are hereby quashed.”
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further
draw the attention of the Court to an order dated
25.06.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025, Mohit vs. State
of Uttarakhand and another, wherein an identical
circumstances the Coordinate Bench had been pleased to
quash the charge-sheet number, summoning order under
Sections 363, 366(A), 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 5 (l)/ 6 of
the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. The
relevant paras 26 to 33 of the said judgment dated
25.06.2025 are extracted hereunder:-
“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
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
wellbeing, 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.
6
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
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.
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.”
7
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
law is sworn to protect.”
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied
upon another judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 27.08.2025 rendered in Criminal Misc.
Application No.1422 of 2025, Gaurav Kumar alias Gaurav
Gujjar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein the
Coordinate Bench was pleased to quash the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial in matter arising out
under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 5
(l)/ 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:-
“11. Though this Court would normally be hesitant to
quash the proceedings under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the proceedings under
the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and the proceedings under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but, it is
noticed that the applicant and the victim got married and
they are living happily with their minor son. In these
circumstances, in case, the proceedings are allowed to
continue, it would amount to denial of complete justice to
the parties. Therefore, it is a case, in which the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to do real
and substantial justice.
12. Considering the totality of the matter, this Court is of
the view that ends of justice would be met if the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.49 of 2022,
“State vs. Gaurav Kumar alias Gaurav Gujjar”, pending
8before the court of Special Judge (POCSO)/District and
Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, are quashed.”
9. Another judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicant is in Criminal Jail Appeal No.29 of
2021, Girish Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand, wherein in similar
circumstances, the Coordinate Bench was pleased to quash
the proceedings at the appellate stage pertaining to offences
under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and under
Sections 3/4, 5(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The relevant paras 8, 9 and 10
of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“8. So far as the instant case is concerned, the victim
Smt. Shanti Devi, is present in person, she admits the
fact, that the girl child, who has been born to her, was
out of the relationship which she had with the present
appellant, who is presently languishing in jail, and he is
serving the sentence as it has been imposed upon him by
the judgment dated 19.02.2021. She submits that owing
to the fact, that now they have married, and the marriage
has been registered, and the proof of registration has
been placed before this Court on record with the
compounding application, and more sympathetically
because of the fact that the girl child has born, who is
presently living with the victim, she submits that the
offence may be compounded because since they are now
having a matrimonial relationship no purpose would be
solved to proceed with the criminal appeal, as against the
judgment of the conviction.
9. Owing to the principle laid down by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to
hereinabove, and in the context of the provisions
contained under sub-section (5) of section 320 of Cr.P.C.,
this Court is of the view that this would be the one of the
fittest case in which the appellate court too could grant
leave to compound the offences, after the conclusion of
the trial, and rendering of the judgment of the conviction,
particularly when, the factum of the marriage, is a fact,
which is admitted by the victim, who is present in the
Court, as well as, the learned counsel representing them.
10. In that view of the matter, since there is a
registered marriage, and there happens to be a girl child
born out of the relationship of the present appellant and
the victim, the present compounding application would
9stands allowed, in the light of the principles laid down in
the matters of Sarfaraz (Supra), as a result thereto the
judgment of the conviction dated 19.02.2021, would
hereby stands quashed in terms of the compounding
application, while exercising my powers under sub-
section (5) of section 320 of Cr.P.C., as a result thereto,
the appellant who is presently languishing in jail is
directed to be released forthwith, without any conditions
being imposed upon him, owing to the acquittal due to
the quashing of the judgment of conviction dated
19.02.2021.”
10. In the present case, a query was made by the
Court to the victim who was present in person duly
identified by her counsel Ms. Mamta Joshi. On a query
made by the Court the victim has stated before the Court
that she has married with the applicant on 01.12.2025 at
Badaun and she is carrying a pregnancy of six months from
the said wedlock. Though the offence under the provisions
of POCSO Act is not compoundable, but in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh
Mukund Patel (supra) and the judgment of this Hon’ble
Court in the case of Girish Lal, Gaurav Kumar alias Gaurav
Gujjar and Girish Kumar Sharma, it is apparent that the
High Court can compound the cases under the POCSO Act
in deserving cases. In the present case, the victim and the
applicant have happily married and are living a settled life
and in fact, the victim has already stated before this Court
that she is happily settled with the marriage and does not
wish to pursue the matter any further, hence, in such view of
the matter, letting the matter go into trial would be a futile
exercise. It is also pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,
10
2012 (10) SCC 303, Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory,
Chandigarh, (2013) 11 SCC 497, B.S. Joshi vs. State of
Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI, (2008) 9
SCC 677 has laid down the law for compounding in non
compoundable cases as well.
11. In view of the overall conspectus of the case and
particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patil (supra) and the
other judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court and in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
compounding application deserves to be allowed.
12. The Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2023) is
hereby allowed and thus the entire proceedings of Special
Sessions Trial No. 50/ 2022, State Vs Saurabh Kumar,
pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Almora, arising
out of FIR no. 01/ 2022, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (3)
of the IPC and Section 5 (l)/ 6 of the Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, Challani Thana Revenue Area
Doba, District Almora, are hereby quashed.
13. The instant C-482 application is, accordingly,
disposed of.
14. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.07.2026
Ravi
