2026:UHC:610 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1604/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. R.K. Rawat (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 4. The present C-528 application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2020 passed by learned F.T.C./Special Judge POCO/Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.28 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 arising out of the F.I.R. No. 32 of 2020 registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. 5. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 2 against the applicant and three other persons, alleging that his daughter was missing and had been abducted by them. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet, whereupon the learned trial court, on the basis thereof, took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. 6. A compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) has been jointly filed by the applicant and the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the applicant and the daughter of the complainant solemnised their marriage on 05.10.2020. Out of the said wedlock, two children—one male and one female—have been born, who are presently aged about four years and two years, respectively. It is further averred that both parties are presently living together peacefully and are duly discharging their matrimonial obligations. The said application is duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as the complainant/respondent no. 2, wherein the complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any 2026:UHC:610 further. 7. The applicant as well as respondent nos.2 & 3 are present before this Court through video conferencing and duly identified by their counsel. Upon due interaction by the Court, the applicant and respondent no.3 have categorically stated that they are presently residing together as husband and wife and are leading a peaceful, cordial, and harmonious matrimonial life. It has further been affirmed that they are duly discharging all their marital obligations and that there exists no dispute, grievance, or ill-will between them. The respondent no.2 father of the respondent no.3/victim also submit the F.I.R. in question came to be lodged on account of a misunderstanding prevailing at the relevant point of time. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 21.01.2020, the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age, her date of birth being 01.01.2001. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, especially in view of the subsequent marriage between the parties and the birth of a child from the wedlock. 9. Learned State counsel opposes the compounding application on the ground that the allegations are serious; however, he does not dispute the factual assertions regarding the marriage between the applicant and the prosecutrix and the birth of children out of the said wedlock. 10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the entire material available on record. Upon a holistic appreciation of the facts and circumstances, it transpires that the genesis of the prosecution lies in a relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, who was, at the relevant point of time, more than 18 years of age. The material on record, prima facie, indicates that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and 2026:UHC:610 consensual in nature, and not the result of force, coercion, misrepresentation, or any form of undue influence. 11. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R., the applicant and the prosecutrix have solemnized their marriage in accordance with law and customs and are presently residing together as husband and wife. It is further borne out from the record, as well as from the statements made before this Court, that two children have been born out of the said wedlock and the parties are leading a peaceful, stable, and harmonious matrimonial life. The complainant, who is the father of the prosecutrix, has also categorically stated on affidavit that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has authoritatively held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is essentially private or personal in nature and where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or would defeat the ends of justice. 13. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the High Court may consider the nature of the offence, the conduct of the parties, and whether the possibility of conviction is remote, and if continuation of proceedings would cause oppression, prejudice, or injustice to the parties. 14. More importantly, in cases under the POCSO Act involving adolescents who are almost adults, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently stressed the need to adopt a practical and justice-oriented approach. In Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, the Supreme Court held that where the evidence shows a consensual relationship and there is no intention to exploit or abuse, criminal law should not be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner. Likewise, in Sabari @ Sabarinathan v. Inspector of 2026:UHC:610 Police, (2019) 15 SCC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to ruin a settled matrimonial life, especially when the prosecutrix is close to the age of majority and has willingly entered into a relationship that has resulted in marriage. 15. Further, in Vijayalakshmi v. State, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 134, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that although the POCSO Act is a beneficial law meant to protect children from sexual exploitation, it is not intended to punish consensual romantic relationships between young persons. Where the facts show voluntary participation, absence of exploitation, and continuation of prosecution would cause serious injustice, such proceedings ought not to be continued. 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. On the contrary, it would cause irreparable harm to the matrimonial life of the parties and would adversely impact the future of the minor child born out of the wedlock. The possibility of conviction, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be remote, and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 17. Accordingly, the compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) is allowed. The charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2020 passed by learned F.T.C./Special Judge POCO/Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.28 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 arising out of the F.I.R. No. 32 of 2020 registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 21.01.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:610