The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case dating back to 2016, observing that “criminality now stands washed off” because the accused had married the prosecutrix long ago. A bench presided over by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh permitted the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, effectively ending trial on charges including abduction, rape, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
According to the court, the chances of conviction now appear “not only remote but also bleak,” given the entirely altered dynamics of the relationship. The FIR in the matter was reportedly lodged in January 2017 by the girl’s father, alleging that his minor daughter had been lured away by the applicant. When she was recovered later that month, she stated in her CrPC Section 161 statement that she had gone with the accused by her own volition, claiming that she was of majority age and had expressed her desire to solemnize Nikah.
Subsequently, the parties referred the case to the High Court’s Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they reached a settlement. The girl’s father, who originally filed the complaint, expressed that he had no objection to quashing the case, noting that the couple was living a peaceful married life. The court placed considerable weight on this change in circumstances, especially the fact that the couple now had a child born in 2018.
Although the State argued that because the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, later developments could not erase the offence under the POCSO Act, the High Court distinguished the present case from Supreme Court precedent cited by the State. The judge noted that this was not a settlement reached recently, but a long-standing marital relationship beginning soon after the events. Thus, he held that the subsequent developments warranted quashing the case, reasoning that “no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of the applicants.”
The Court also expressed concern for the stability of the family that has emerged over the years, emphasizing that allowing the prosecution to continue would jeopardize the “happy” life of the couple and their child. It observed that the judicial time required for trial would be wasted on a case that is no longer in sync with the present reality.
In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on Supreme Court rulings, including K. Dhandapani v. The State and Mafat Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, where charges or proceedings were quashed because the accused had married the prosecutrix. The court declared that it “cannot turn a blind eye” to the fact of marriage and familial consolidation, and that justice in this case lay in recognizing the transformed relationship rather than pushing forward with a prosecution that may now serve little substantive purpose.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.