The Uttarakhand high court has quashed criminal proceedings in a POCSO-linked case against a 21-year-old man from Udham Singh Nagar, holding that the continuation of prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose where the parties have since lawfully married, are cohabiting peacefully, and the woman is carrying a pregnancy. In an order dated February 20, 2026, Justice Alok Mahra allowed a compounding application and set aside the charge sheet dated 30.12.2022, the summoning order dated 23.01.2023, and the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.101 of 2023 pending before the Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The court’s reasoning, as recorded in the order, turned on the present matrimonial status of the parties, the stability of their cohabitation, and the court’s view that allowing the case to proceed would amount to a “denial of complete justice,” warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to do “real and substantial justice.”
Background of the case
The proceedings arose from an FIR lodged on October 17, 2022 by the father of the girl (respondent no.3), invoking IPC Sections 376 (rape) and 363 (kidnapping) along with provisions of the POCSO Act. As recorded in the case narrative placed before the court, at the time of the FIR the accused was 19 and the girl was 17.The matter progressed to a charge sheet dated 30.12.2022 and a summoning order dated 23.01.2023, culminating in S.S.T. No.101 of 2023 before the designated POCSO court in Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant approached the high court through a C-528 application seeking quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order, and the entire trial proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties, supported by affidavits.
Key procedural points reflected in the order:
- C-528 application sought quashing of charge sheet (30.12.2022) and summoning order (23.01.2023)
- Compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) sought permission to compound offenses
- Parties appeared virtually and were identified by counsel
- Affidavits were filed by the parties stating the compromise
Appellant’s argumentsThe applicant’s counsel argued that the relationship between the applicant and respondent no.3 was consensual and that, on the date of the FIR, respondent no.3 was “above 17 years of age” and “competent to understand the nature and consequences of her actions.” The defence further submitted that after registration of the FIR, the parties “solemnized their marriage of their own free will” and were residing together as husband and wife. A central plank of the plea was the present circumstance that respondent no.3 was “carrying a pregnancy,” and that continuation of criminal proceedings would adversely affect:
- Their matrimonial life
- The well-being of the unborn child
These submissions were placed to support the request that the court permit compounding and quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.What respondents saidThe State, through its counsel, “vehemently opposed” the compounding application. The opposition, as reflected in the narrative of the case and consistent with the order’s framing, was that offences under the POCSO Act are serious and that proceedings should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between parties. The order also notes the context of a “recent judgment” of the Supreme Court addressing the limits of quashing in POCSO matters, indicating that the State’s resistance was anchored in the seriousness attached to such offences and the general principle that compromise alone is not determinative.HC’s analysisThe high court’s analysis proceeds in two linked steps: first, acknowledging the Supreme Court’s approach in a recent judgment; and second, applying that ratio to the facts before it.The order records that the Supreme Court recognised that even where a serious offence under the POCSO Act is involved, proceedings “could not be quashed solely on compromise.” At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized “compassion and practicality” in a situation where the accused and victim were legally married and expecting a child, observing that the crime arose “from love, not lust,” and that continuing prosecution or imprisonment would “disrupt the family unit.” The high court then notes that the present case mirrors those stabilizing factors: lawful marriage, cohabitation as husband and wife, and pregnancy.
On facts, the court records:
- The parties have “lawfully solemnized their marriage”
- They are “presently residing together as husband and wife”
- Respondent no.3 is “carrying a pregnancy”
- They are “cohabiting peacefully and leading a stable matrimonial life”
On that basis, the court concludef that if proceedings are allowed to continue, it “would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties,” and therefore it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction to do “real and substantial justice.”Legal significanceThe order is significant for how it frames the court’s power to bring a POCSO-linked prosecution to an end in a post-marriage, post-compromise setting, not by treating compromise as sufficient in itself, but by anchoring the outcome in:
- The “ratio” of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment as summarized in the order
- The present, recorded circumstances of lawful marriage, pregnancy, and stable cohabitation
- The court’s assessment of “complete justice” and the need to prevent disruption of the family unit
The final orderThe high court allowed the compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026), permitted the offences between the parties to be compounded, and quashed the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.101 of 2023 pending before the Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The C-528 application was disposed of accordingly.
Operative directions recorded:
- Compounding application allowed
- Offences permitted to be compounded
- Entire proceedings in S.S.T. No.101 of 2023 quashed
- C-528 application disposed of
Key takeaways
- The court treated the present marital status, pregnancy, and stable cohabitation as decisive contextual factors.
- The order records that quashing is not justified “solely on compromise,” but may be considered where the broader circumstances align with the Supreme Court’s compassion-and-practicality approach as summarized.
- The court explicitly invoked inherent jurisdiction to secure “real and substantial justice” and avoid “denial of complete justice.”
- The court accepted that continuing the proceedings would disrupt the family unit, a consideration expressly reflected in the order’s reasoning.
Why this mattersThe ruling underscores how the high court, on the facts recorded before it, weighed the continuation of a POCSO-linked prosecution against the present reality of a lawfully married couple expecting a child and living in a stable matrimonial arrangement. It highlights a judicial approach that, while acknowledging the seriousness of POCSO offences and the State’s opposition to compromise-based quashing, still permits termination of proceedings where the court finds that continuing the case would undermine complete justice and destabilise an existing family unit, as reflected in the order’s own language and the Supreme Court ratio it cites.
