State of Uttarakhand and Ors v. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the Applicant, Kheem Singh, seeking quashing of (i) the charge sheet dated

11.04.2023, (ii) the cognizance order passed by learned FTC/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, Nainital, and (iii) the charge framing order dated 05.06.2023 in Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of

2023, titled State of Uttarakhand v. Kheem Singh, arising out of FIR No. 0042/2023 dated 17.02.2023, registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, Unmesh Chandra Pandey, alleging that on 17.02.2023, his minor daughter had gone missing around 1:45 p.m., and upon searching, she was found at the house of a neighbour in a state of undress, with the accused allegedly Criminal Misc. Application No. 611 of 2025, Kheem Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors 1 Ashish Naithani J. fleeing the premises by jumping a wall. The complainant suspected that a sexual assault had been committed on his daughter.

3. Medical examination of the minor victim was conducted at the Government Female Hospital, Haldwani, following which her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. Notably, in the said statement, the victim did not name the Applicant as the accused.

4. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on

11.04.2023 against the Applicant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, took cognizance of the matter and framed charges vide order dated 05.06.2023. The trial was registered as Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2023.

5. The Applicant was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on

16.01.2024. Meanwhile, four witnesses including the complainant and the victim were examined before the Trial Court. The victim did not support the prosecution’s case in her testimony.

6. It is contended that the FIR was lodged in the heat of the moment and without a complete understanding of the situation, as the victim never named the Applicant in her medical or judicial statement.

7. The learned Counsel submits that the victim has now attained the age of majority and both parties have solemnised marriage and reside together peacefully. In light of this consensual settlement, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

8. It is further urged that the prosecution’s primary witness (i.e., the victim) has been examined before the Trial Court and has not supported the case. The trial is thus rendered infructuous and is liable to be quashed. Criminal Misc. Application No. 611 of 2025, Kheem Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. The learned Counsel acknowledges that the offences under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Learned AGA urged that such offences have public law implications and cannot be diluted on the basis of private settlements or post facto compromise between the parties.

11. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The present case arises from allegations of sexual assault on a minor under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Ordinarily, such offences are considered grave and carry a significant societal element, which the law does not permit to be compounded under Section 320 CrPC or the corresponding provisions of BNSS.

12. In the present case, the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, has since attained majority and has solemnized marriage with the Applicant. Four witnesses including the complainant and the victim have been examined during trial, and the victim has not supported the prosecution version.

13. This Court has carefully perused the certified copies of the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the depositions recorded before the Trial Court. The victim neither named the Applicant in her initial statement nor attributed any act of sexual assault to him during trial. The complainant has also ceased to support State's case. In the absence of the victim’s support, the trial is rendered effectively toothless.

14. The Court is further informed that the Applicant is currently on bail, and the victim has expressly declared her intention not to pursue the proceedings. Both individuals have married and reside together, Criminal Misc. Application No. 611 of 2025, Kheem Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors 3 Ashish Naithani J. which if genuine and voluntary, substantially changes the complexion of the case.

15. While this Court remains conscious of the gravity of offences under the POCSO Act, it is equally mindful of the need to prevent miscarriage of justice in cases where the continuation of proceedings is futile and oppressive. In view of the victim’s deposition, the settlement arrived at, and the mutual desire of the parties to move on, the present case falls within the exceptional category warranting exercise of inherent powers. ORDER In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, and in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the application. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 11.04.2023, the cognizance order passed by the learned FTC/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, Nainital, the charge framing order dated 05.06.2023, and the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2023, titled State of Uttarakhand v. Kheem Singh, are hereby quashed. Dated:15.07.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 611 of 2025, Kheem Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors 4 Ashish Naithani J.