State of Uttarakhand vs Mr. Aman Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Judgment

1. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.04.2025 as well as the summoning order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in S.S.T. No. 18 of 2025,

titled State v. Aman Manola. The proceedings arise from FIR No. 02 of 2025, registered at Police Station Askot, District Pithoragarh, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The FIR was lodged on 06.03.2025 by the complainant, who is the father of the victim. It was alleged that the present Applicant, Aman Manola, had visited their village approximately two months before the incident on the occasion of a religious ceremony, and thereafter began harassing the complainant’s daughter. On the morning of the alleged incident, while the victim was on her way to school, the Applicant is Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025, Aman ManolaVs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. said to have lured and enticed her away. As per the school records, the Victim was born on 15.03.2008, and was thus 16 years, 11 months, and 1 day old on the date of the occurrence.

3. During the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and later before the Magistrate under Section 183. In both versions, the Victim supported the contents of the FIR. The statements of the complainant, the victim’s mother, and other witnesses, including police personnel and medical officers, were also recorded, all of whom corroborated the prosecution case.

4. Based on the material collected, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the Applicant under the provisions mentioned above, which was duly considered by the learned Trial Court while taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused.

5. It is in this backdrop that the present application has been filed, primarily based on a compromise dated 26.04.2025 entered into between the Applicant and the complainant party, whereby it is stated that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and propose to solemnize the marriage of the Applicant and the Victim once she attains the age of majority.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the relationship between the Applicant and the Victim was consensual and arose out of mutual affection. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR were lodged in the heat of the moment by the Victim’s father, but the same no longer survive in light of the subsequent understanding reached between the families. Reference is made to the compromise agreement dated 26.04.2025, wherein both sides have agreed to get the Applicant and the victim married after she attains the age of majority.

7. It is urged that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings, particularly when the victim and her Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025, Aman ManolaVs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. family do not wish to pursue the case. Learned Counsel further submits that the present prosecution, if allowed to proceed, would not only be a futile exercise but would also operate harshly against a young person who is allegedly in a genuine relationship.

8. Per contra, learned State Counsel, opposing the prayer, submits that the offences alleged in the present case are serious in nature and involve a child victim, attracting the rigours of the POCSO Act.

9. It is submitted that the Victim, being below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, cannot, in law, consent to a sexual relationship, and any such act, even if alleged to be consensual, would nonetheless amount to a prosecutable offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

10. It is further contended that the statements recorded during the investigation clearly affirm the allegations made in the FIR, and that the materials on record establish a prima facie case warranting trial.

11. Learned State Counsel further submits that offences under the POCSO Act are not compoundable and are offences against society at large.

12. The alleged compromise, even if genuine, cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings under such special statutes, as held in several authoritative pronouncements.

13. It is emphasized that permitting the accused to avoid trial merely on the strength of a compromise would defeat the very object and purpose of the POCSO Act and would set a dangerous precedent.

14. It is also pointed out that the statements of the Victim and other prosecution witnesses, including her parents and the medical officer, were consistent and corroborative, and that the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction in taking cognizance.

15. Learned State Counsel,therefore, prays that the application be dismissed as it is devoid of merit. Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025, Aman ManolaVs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J.

16. 17. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The F.I.R. discloses specific allegations regarding the enticement of a minor girl while she was on her way to school. The school records and the high school certificate placed on record indicate that the Victim was born on 15.03.2008, and was therefore a child within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act on the date of occurrence. The statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, both by the victim and her parents, as well as supporting statements of other prosecution witnesses, reveal that the allegations are not vague or perfunctory but are corroborated by consistent testimonial and documentary material.

18. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the POCSO Act is a special statute enacted to protect children from sexual offences and to provide for stringent punishments in cases of exploitation of minors.

19. The statutory bar on compounding of such offences under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reflects legislative intent that these matters are not to be resolved through private settlements or familial compromises.

20. The Court also notes that the compromise deed dated 26.04.2025, while evidencing reconciliation between the parties, cannot override the statutory prohibition contained in the POCSO Act, nor can it constitute a legal basis for quashing proceedings which involve allegations of sexual exploitation of a child. Any leniency at this stage would amount to legitimizing an offence that strikes at the very dignity and bodily integrity of a child, and may set an unhealthy precedent.

21. Further, the findings of the Investigating Officer, the medical opinion, and the contemporaneous statements recorded during the investigation have all been duly considered by the learned Trial Court while passing the summoning order dated 03.05.2025. Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025, Aman ManolaVs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

22. This Court does not find any manifest illegality or procedural infirmity in the said order. The question whether the relationship was consensual or whether the Victim was a willing participant is an issue of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, and is best left to be tested on evidence during trial. ORDER Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that the application lacks merit and does not fall within the narrow and exceptional categories wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS may be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025 is hereby rejected. (Ashish Naithani J.)

21.07.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b 09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9 BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Misc. Application No. 688 of 2025, Aman ManolaVs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.