2025:UHC:9792 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1709 of 2025 6th November, 2025 Rakesh Lal --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Arun Pratap Shah, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Manoj Mohan, learned counsel for the private respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: ( per Alok Mah r a J.) Learned counsel for the parties submit that they do not wish to press the compounding application. 2. In view of the above, the compounding application (IA No. 2 of 2025) is dismissed as not pressed. 3. By way of the present application, moved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceedings of SST No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6, 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO)/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, as 2025:UHC:9792 2 well as the charge sheet dated 23.11.2020 and the summoning order dated 23.11.2020 issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the father of respondent no. 2 on 07.12.2019, alleging therein that his daughter, then a student of Class 11, had gone to school on 01.12.2019 but did not return home. Upon inquiry, it was suspected that the applicant had kidnapped her and committed rape. After investigation, the statement of respondent no. 2 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, wherein she categorically stated that she had left home with her own free will. As per her school leaving certificate, her date of birth is 25.06.2002, and on the date of the incident, she was above 17 years of age. She further stated that the applicant had not kidnapped her but had accompanied her with her consent; that she married the applicant in December 2019, and was pregnant from the said wedlock. Thereafter, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet under the above-mentioned sections of IPC and the POCSO Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her deposition as PW2, the victim reiterated the facts 2025:UHC:9792 3 stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination, she further stated that her parents were attempting to forcibly marry her to another person in Haryana, due to which she voluntarily left home and married the applicant after attaining the age of marriage. A copy of the marriage certificate has also been placed on record. The couple has since been blessed with a child. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2307, held that even if the victim was not a major at the time of marriage but was married and pregnant, the act was not one of lust but of love. The victim expressed her desire to live a peaceful family life with the applicant, upon whom she is dependent, without the stigma of criminality. In the present case, as per the victim’s statement and the marriage certificate, both applicant and respondent no. 2 were major at the time of marriage, and a child has been born from the wedlock; hence, no offence under the aforesaid provisions is made out. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court considers it appropriate to adopt a balanced approach guided by compassion and practicality. The applicant and the victim are legally married and have been blessed with a child. The victim 2025:UHC:9792 4 has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the applicant, upon whom she is dependent. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would instead cause undue hardship to the victim, the minor child, and the family as a whole. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS is allowed. The entire proceedings of SST No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6, 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO)/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, along with the charge sheet dated 23.11.2020 and summoning order dated 23.11.2020, are hereby quashed. ( ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 06.11.2025 BS BALWAN T SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c 02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB55 3DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 15:54:00 +05'30'