Dhruv Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand and

Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A., for the State. Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents no. 2 & 3. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present application has been moved under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 958 of 2023, arising out of FIR No. 186 of 2023, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the Victim on 06.06.2023, alleging that her daughter had gone missing. It was suspected that the Applicant had enticed and abducted her. The police registered the FIR and initiated investigation.

3. The Victim was traced in Bihar and brought back. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, wherein she stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the Applicant out of love, that both had solemnised marriage as per Bengali Hindu rites, and that she was pregnant. Criminal Misc. Application No. 646 of 2025, Dhruv MandalVs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J.

4. The charge sheet was filed under the aforementioned provisions. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, and the matter was committed to the Special Court under the POCSO Act.

5. The Applicant contends that both parties are now major and residing as a married couple. The complainant has also filed a sworn affidavit indicating that she does not intend to prosecute the matter further. The victim is reportedly over 19 weeks pregnant.

6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Applicant that the present case arises out of a consensual relationship which has culminated in marriage. The Victim is now an adult and is carrying the child of the Applicant. She has no intention to pursue the prosecution and is living peacefully with the Applicant.

7. It is further submitted that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue under such circumstances would serve no meaningful purpose, rather it would disrupt the family life of the Applicant and the prosecutrix and affect the welfare of the unborn child.

8. Learned State Counsel does not seriously dispute the fact that the prosecutrix and the Applicant are now cohabiting as husband and wife and that the prosecutrix is in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

9. It is, however, urged that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet relate to serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and ordinarily, such cases should proceed to trial.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The primary allegation in the FIR was that the Applicant had enticed and abducted the victim, who was stated to be a minor at the time. However, upon her recovery, the prosecutrix categorically stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement that she had left her parental home Criminal Misc. Application No. 646 of 2025, Dhruv MandalVs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. voluntarily and had gone with the Applicant out of love. She disclosed that she and the Applicant had solemnised marriage in accordance with Hindu Bengali rites and that she was pregnant. She further expressed her unequivocal disinclination to pursue the prosecution.

12. It is not in dispute that both the prosecutrix and the Applicant have since attained majority and are residing together as a married couple. It is also not disputed by the State that the prosecutrix is now over 19 weeks pregnant. The complainant, i.e., the mother of the prosecutrix, has filed a sworn affidavit supporting the marriage and expressing her desire not to continue with the prosecution.

13. While this Court remains mindful of the grave nature of the offences allegedparticularly those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Actit is equally imperative to assess the facts of each case in their totality. The facts in the present case disclose a relationship which has transitioned into a marital bond, and both families appear to have accepted the same. The prosecutrix does not support the allegations and the trial, if permitted to continue, would rest on a reluctant and hostile witness, severely undermining the prosecutorial foundation.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that the power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings even where the offences are not compoundable, if the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or defeat the ends of justice. Similarly, in ParbatbhaiAahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, it was held that the High Court must assess whether the continuation of prosecution serves any meaningful purpose, and where the case arises out of a private dispute with no likelihood of conviction, quashing may be justified in the interest of justice. Criminal Misc. Application No. 646 of 2025, Dhruv MandalVs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J.

15. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is evident that permitting the proceedings to continue would serve no useful object and would only cause hardship to the prosecutrix and the unborn child. The proceedings appear to be the result of familial apprehensions which have since been resolved. The prosecutrix and the Applicant are now lawfully wed and expecting a child. This Court is of the considered view that allowing the prosecution to continue in the given circumstances would not subserve the cause of justice. ORDER This Court finds it a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, this application is allowed. (Ashish Naithani J.)

15.07.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Misc. Application No. 646 of 2025, Dhruv MandalVs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.