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 18 Criminal Misc. Application No.794 of 2025-----Mohit vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.