2026:UHC:597 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1215/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Ankush Singhal, learned counsel for respondents. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, the summoning/cognizance order dated 27.07.2024, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 582 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R. No. 203 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Initially, the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant/respondent no.3 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the minor daughter of the complainant and that the parents of the applicant had accompanied him in the said act. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet, and on the basis thereof, the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, a compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) has been filed jointly by the applicant and the complainant stating, inter alia, that the applicant and the daughter of the complainant solemnized their marriage on 25.10.2024 and out of the said wedlock, one female child has been born. It is further averred that both parties are living together peacefully and are discharging their matrimonial obligations. The said application is duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as the complainant, wherein the complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to 2026:UHC:597 pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 7. The applicant as well as the victim are present before this Hon’ble Court through video conferencing and duly identified by their counsel. Upon due interaction by the Court, both 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 victim has further submitted that 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 would submit that at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age, her date of birth being 02.07.2006, and the incident having taken place on 27.03.2024, making her 17 years and 8 months old. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, particularly in view of the subsequent marriage and birth of a child. 9. Learned State counsel opposes the compounding application on the ground that the allegations are serious and relate to offences under the POCSO Act; however, he does not dispute the factual assertions regarding the marriage between the applicant and the prosecutrix and the birth of a child 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. From a holistic appraisal of the facts, it emerges that the prosecution has its genesis in a relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, who, at the time of the alleged incident, was on the verge of attaining majority, being more than 17 years and 8 months old. The material placed on record prima facie reflects that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and consensual in nature and not the result of any 2026:UHC:597 force, coercion, or inducement. 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 a female child has 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 Police, (2019) 15 SCC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings should not be 2026:UHC:597 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, summoning/ cognizance order dated 27.07.2024, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 582 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R. No. 203 of 2024, pending before the Court of learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 20.01.2026 Mamta