Arbaj Another v. State of Uttarakhand& Others

The FIR in the instant matter was lodged on 25.12.2023 by the father of the minor victim, aged about 15 years, alleging that the accused persons forcibly took his daughter to a house, threatened her with harm, and committed sexual assault. The FIR further states that the victim was intimidated that a video of the incident would be made public on social media. Following the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on

22.01.2024, and the learned trial court took cognizance on 21.02.2024.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The Applicants have relied on certain statements made by the victim during the course of the investigation, wherein she is stated to have denied the commission of any sexual act and described the incident as arising from a misunderstanding or familial dispute. It is also submitted that the victim and ApplicantNo. 2 were known to each other, and there existed a personal relationship. They contend that the subsequent statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and in court proceedings were the result of external influence, and that the medical report does not support allegations of sexual assault. On these grounds, they request that the court terminate the trial proceedings, as continuation would cause unnecessary hardship.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicants contends that the entire criminal case stems from a misunderstanding and emotional reaction from the victim’s family, and not from any actual commission of the alleged offences.

8. It is further submitted that the victim and ApplicantNo. 2, Kaleem, had known each other for over a year and were in a romantic relationship, regularly communicating over calls. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim’s father and not based on the voluntary complaint of the victim. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. Learned counsel draws the court’s attention that in her Section 161 CrPC statement, the victim herself denied any incident of sexual assault, denied being threatened, and also denied the existence of any alleged video. It is submitted that her Section 164 CrPC statement shows an altered narrative, allegedly recorded under the influence of family members and legal pressure.

10. Learned Counsel argues that the medical examination of the victim notes that her hymen was found intact and no external or internal injuries were present, thereby medically contradicting the allegations of rape. It was further submitted that five witnesses have already been examined during the trial, including the victim, and she has, in her later depositions, not supported the prosecution's version.

11. The learned Counsel also highlights that the matter has now been amicably settled in the interest of the future of the girl and the families involved.

12. Per contra, Ms. Shazia Parvesh, learned counsel for the Respondent and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that the offences alleged are of a grave and heinous nature, involving rape and sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act, and are not compoundable.

13. Learned counsel lay emphasis on the argument that Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable by law, and the statute provides no scope for compromise in cases involving sexual offences against children.

14. Further submission was made that the victim is a minor, and thus her consent if any is legally irrelevant. The presumption of statutory protection under POCSO overrides any arguments based on consent or relationship.

15. Counsel submits the Court cannot permit a private arrangement such as a promise of marriage to substitute Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others 3 Ashish Naithani J. consequences for serious criminal charges. Allowing such a compromise would amount to endorsing unlawful settlements and could discourage reporting of such offences in the future.

16. Having carefully perused the record, this Court finds that the victim, being a minor at the time of the alleged incident, was below the legally defined age of consent. Thus, even if there existed any personal or emotional relationship between her and either of the accused, it is rendered legally inconsequential under the provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC.

17. This Court further notes that the offences for which the Applicants stand charged are of a serious and grave nature. The allegations involve not only the offence of rape of a child but also molestation and intimidation. These are not offences which are viewed by the law as private wrongs between two individuals. Instead, they are offences of public character crimes that affect the fabric of society and threaten the safety of its most vulnerable members.

18. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was enacted with the specific intent to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. It creates a legal framework that is stringent, and for good reason. In such cases, the victim's minority is not just a matter of age it is a matter of heightened vulnerability, reduced autonomy, and increased societal responsibility. Permitting compromise in such situations is not merely legally impermissible it defeats the very intent of the legislature.

19. Further, the compromise placed on record discloses that the parties have agreed to amicably resolve the matter, and arrangements have been made wherein the victim will be married to Applicant no. 2 upon attaining majority. Such an understanding, while appearing to present a consensual resolution, cannot be recognized or acted upon by a constitutional court. No promise of marriage or financial support can nullify or override the statutory safeguards extended to a minor girl. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others 4 Ashish Naithani J. Court cannot allow itself to be used as a vehicle for legitimizing arrangements that compromise the dignity, safety, or rights of a child.

20. Moreover, the materials annexed with the application, including the victim’s inconsistent statements, medical examination reports, and the affidavits of parties, though relevant for trial, do not render the prosecution malicious or frivolous at this stage. The evaluation of evidentiary contradictions or the medical opinion on injury or lack thereof is matters squarely within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, is not required to conduct a mini-trial or pre-judge the evidentiary value of such documents.

21. The contention that the case is the result of a misunderstanding or that the victim now seeks to retract is of little consequence when the law has expressly barred compounding of such offences. The Court must remain alert to the possibility of coercion, social pressure, or manipulation when such settlements are proposed in offences involving minor girls. The need to secure justice for the vulnerable cannot be subordinated to private settlements or family arrangements. ORDER Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is dismissed. The compounding applications are also hereby not allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to conduct the trial expeditiously. Ashish Naithani, J. Dated: 17.07.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54 2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5 DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others 5 Ashish Naithani J.