Criminality Now Stands Washed Off: Allahabad High Court Quashes 2016 POCSO Case After Noting Accused And Victim Had Been Married For Years
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh quashed the criminal proceedings arising from a 2016 case registered under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, after noting that the accused and the prosecutrix had married several years ago and were living together with their child. The matter had stemmed from allegations of abduction and related offences, but the prosecutrix later stated she had gone voluntarily and was now settled in her marital life. The Court observed that any alleged wrongdoing had, in effect, lost relevance in light of subsequent developments, rendering the likelihood of conviction minimal. It therefore directed that the chargesheet, summoning order, and the entire trial be set aside.
The matter began with a police complaint lodged in January 2017 alleging that the applicants had abducted a minor girl in December 2016. The informant stated that when he approached the house of the primary accused, family members, including the other applicants, abused and threatened him. A case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and insult, along with sections of the POCSO Act. The victim was recovered later in January 2017, after which her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. She stated that she had accompanied the primary accused of her own accord, described herself as major, and expressed her desire to marry him. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC repeated these assertions, including that no sexual act had occurred during the period they lived together. A medical examination conducted shortly after her recovery recorded no injuries, and an age determination report placed her at approximately 18 years.
Following examination of the victim and other witnesses, a chargesheet was filed in March 2017. During subsequent proceedings, it was stated that the primary accused and the victim had married and were living together, with a child born from the marriage. On request, the matter was referred to mediation in 2025, where the parties executed a settlement affirming that they no longer wished to pursue the dispute and had resolved all issues. Throughout the proceedings, the State opposed quashing, arguing that offences under the POCSO Act cannot be nullified by compromise.
The Court recorded that the marriage took place “a long way back” and the couple had been living “under the same roof for a very long time.”
The Court stated that “the parties have solemnized marriage and they are living together as husband and wife and a baby boy was born on 09.08.2018.” It further recorded that “the prosecutrix is now residing with the applicant no.1 as his legally wedded wife, no such material has been brought on record on the basis of which the marriage of the parties could be doubted.”
It observed that “in view of the subsequent development, the criminality, if any, committed by the applicants now stands washed off.” The Court noted that “the chances of conviction of the applicants are now not only remote but also bleak.”
The Bench expressed that continuation of prosecution “would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.” It added that allowing proceedings to continue “a happy family comprising of applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix shall stand broken.”
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing where the accused and prosecutrix married and were living together. It observed that the ratio of Shriram Urav, Mahesh Mukund Patel, K. Dhandapani and Mafat Lal applied since “the applicant no.1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together with their baby boy and this Court cannot ignore the said fact.”
The Court distinguished Ramji Lal Bairwa, stating that here the informant had also joined mediation and opposed continuation of proceedings.
The Court ordered that “the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.187 of 2017 (State vs. Wasiullah and Others) … are hereby quashed.” This included quashing of “impugned Chargesheet dated 16.03.2017 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 23.03.2017, pending in the court of learned Special Court, POCSO Act, District - Sant Kabir Nagar.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Vikas Yadav
For the Respondents: Shri Ranu
Case Title: XXX and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:207712
Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 34844 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
