State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. Learned AGA states that notice has been served on opposite party no.2. Accordingly, service of notice on opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

3. The present application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1924 of 2024 (State Vs. Akash @ Vikas), arising out of cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as charge-sheet dated 14.02.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a first information report was lodged on 13.01.2024 at Police Station Barla, District Aligarh under Section 363 I.P.C. by the father of the prosecutrix stating that his minor daughter is missing from his home from 13.01.2024. It has been stated that subsequently the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded stating that she is 17 years of age and is a student of Class 10 and she knows the applicant from last 5 to 6 months and is also in love relationship with him and on her own violation on 13.01.2024 had left her house and went with the applicant to Moradabad. After coming back the police had arrested them and her statement was recorded. Subsequently, she has reiterated her 2 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.

5. It has been further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix and the applicant have solemnized their marriage on

06.02.2025 at Shri Bala Ji Pooja Kendra, Subhash Nagar, Ward No.08, Bajpur Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand and subsequently, had approached the Uttrakhand High Court and sought a protection order in Writ Petition No.121 of 2025 wherein an order was passed in their favour on 27.02.2025. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the prosecutrix are living together as husband and wife and accordingly had approached this Court for quashing of the said proceedings.

6. In the present case, the averments made in the petition are accompanied by an affidavit filed by the prosecutrix who has stated that her age is 18 years residence of Bazpur Gaon, Post Maheshpura Bazpur, Po. Bazpur, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the applicant giving details of the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2025. The State on the other hand has also filed a counter affidavit wherein also they have not denied the aspect of marriage of the applicant and the prosecutrix but have stated that the marriage cannot be accepted because the prosecutrix is a minor.

7. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances a prayer has been made for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. From perusal of the aforesaid facts it is evident that the proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the first information report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix under Section 363 I.P.C. relating to an incident which has occurred on 13.01.2024 when the prosecutrix was alleged to have fled from her home along with the applicant.

8. It is the consistent view of the prosecutrix that she is in a relationship with the accused from 5 to 6 months since the said statement was made by her when statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We find that in the present petition under Section 528 BNSS the affidavit has been sworn by the prosecutrix and accordingly, this Court has no reason to doubt the un-controverted facts which are borne from the records that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in love relationship and the prosecutrix had left her home on her own volition and 3 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 subsequently they have got marriage on 06.02.2025 and are living together as husband and wife.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only aspect is that as per the prosecution the prosecurtrix was a minor on the date she had left her house and hence even sexual relations were maintained with the applicant still it would amount to rape inasmuch as the prosecutrix being minor was incapable of giving any consent. Accordingly, the question falls before this Court as to whether the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed or not. In this regard we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023 has dealt with a particular aspect which has engaged this Court in the present case. It would be profitable to quote the relevant provisions of the aforesaid judgment:- "3. This Court by a detailed judgment dated 20th August 2024, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the verdict of the learned Special Court to the extent of the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under clause (n) of sub-section 2 and sub-section (3) of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This Court confirmed the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. However, the sentencing was postponed for the reasons recorded in the judgment. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, the basic facts of the case have been mentioned and in paragraph 3, the findings recorded by the High Court have been mentioned. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the judgment are relevant which read thus: “2. The victim girl was fourteen years old at the time of the incident. The victim's mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 29th May 2018. The victim's mother stated in her complaint that the victim, who was her minor daughter, escaped from her home at 5 : 30 p.m. on 20th May 2018 without informing anyone. On inquiry, it was found that the accused enticed her to leave her house. The accused did so with the help of his two sisters. The victim's mother repeatedly visited the house of the accused and requested him to facilitate the return of her daughter. However, the victim did not come back. A female child was born to the victim. Admittedly, the accused is the biological father of the child. There was a gross delay in the investigation, and the accused was arrested on 19th December 2021. The chargesheet was filed on 27th January 2022 against the accused for the offences for which he was convicted. In addition, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. We may note here that as the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act found that there was no evidence of marriage between the victim and the accused, the charge under Section 9 of the 2006 Act was held as not substantiated. 4 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025

3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC were not made out, and therefore, the High Court acquitted the accused for the said two offences. Considering the factual scenario that the High Court noticed, it purported to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr. P.C.’) to set aside the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sub-sections 2(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC. The High Court noted that the mother of the victim had disowned her and therefore, the victim was continuously residing with the accused along with their minor child. 4. The Suo Motu writ petition was initiated based on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for challenging the impugned judgment. The State Government has preferred the criminal appeal to challenge the order of acquittal. 5. Considering the nature of the observations made by the High Court and the findings recorded by it, this Court appointed Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew, the learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Both of them have rendered valuable assistance to the Court. Along with them, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Advocate-on-Record, has also assisted the Court. We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government and the learned counsel representing the accused and the victim. The learned senior counsel for the State Government has taken a fair stand. The accused and the victim are on the same page and want to continue their cohabitation.”

19. The preliminary report of the Committee indicates that in 2017, the victim met the accused through her neighbour who happened to be the sister of the accused. At that time, their ages were 13 and 25 years respectively. It is claimed that over a period of time they fell in love and on 20th May 2018, the victim left her home. She married the accused at a temple. Within nine days, on 29th May 2018, the victim's mother lodged a police complaint. As a result of registration of the FIR, the police placed the victim in Narendrapur Sanlaap home. She was there for a month, and thereafter, she was sent back to her parents. She resumed her education at school and was promoted to class 10. While she was studying in class 10, she once again left her parental home and started living with the accused. Perhaps this period was very crucial in her life as she felt stigmatised and humiliated, as recorded in the preliminary report. She noticed that the entire village was discussing her case. Her siblings were taunting her. She was subjected to the vigilance of her mother, who accompanied her to school and tuition classes. Given these circumstances, the victim might have felt compelled to leave her home. 24. What troubles us is the issue of sentencing. The reports of the Committee stare at our faces. Though the victim did not treat the incident as a heinous crime, she suffered because of it. This was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings of our society, our legal system and her family. In fact, she did not get any opportunity 5 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 to make informed choice. The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her. Now, she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband. Now, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive of her small family. 25. After having read the reports and having interacted with the Committee as well as the victim, we are of the view that if we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself. As compared to the situation in 2018, she is better placed today. Now she is comfortable with her small family. She along with the accused, is concentrating on their daughter and they want to ensure that she gets quality education. At the same time, as recorded in the final report, the victim is attending school and is desperate to complete her school education. Though the State has offered to enroll her in some vocational course, she is keen on completing her education, at least up to graduation. 26. In law, we have no option but to sentence the accused and send him to jail for undergoing the minimum punishment prescribed by the Statute. However, in this case, the society, the family of the victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim. The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects. 31. Hence, we pass the following order: a) We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier; b) We direct the State to take following measures: i) To act as a true guardian of the victim and her child; ii) To provide a better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of few months from today; iii) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim till Xth standard examination and if she desires to take up education for a degree course, till the completion of degree course. After she passes her Xth standard examination, the State can offer her vocational training, obviously, at the cost of the State; iv) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the child up to Xth standard and ensuring that she is educated in a very good school in the vicinity of the place of residence of the victim; and v) To endeavour to take the assistance of NGOs or public-spirited citizens for the purpose of securing the debts incurred by the victim as a one-time measure. c) We direct the State to file compliance report giving details of the implementation of the directions contained in clause (b) above. The first compliance report shall be filed by 15th July 2025. Thereafter, 6 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 compliance reports shall be filed after the interval of every six months. The first compliance report will be considered on 25th July 2025. We direct the Registry to list the case on 25th July 2025. d) Issue notice to the Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The notice is made returnable on 25th July 2025. A copy of the judgment dated 20th August 2024 and this judgment shall accompany notice; e) Immediately on service of notice, the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development shall appoint a Committee of experts to deal with the suggestions of the learned amici curiae. Senior officers of the State shall be a part of the Committee. If necessary, the Committee can also consult the learned senior counsel appointed as amici curiae. Immediately on service of notice, the Secretary shall constitute a Committee. The members of the Committee constituted by this Court shall be permanent invitees to the said Committee; and f) The Committee will submit a detailed report before the returnable date to this Court. To consider the implementation of the suggestions of the learned amici curiae based on the said report, this Court will pass further directions from time to time;"

10. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafat Lal & Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 (6) SCC 589 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1806 of 2021 has held that no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the parties and it would be futile exercise. This has clearly stated that she was in love with abductor and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married with the abductor on her own free will without any influence being exercised upon her. Accordingly, the court was of the considered view that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances ends of justice would be secured by quashing the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom.

11. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no injunction upon the Courts to refrain from quashing any criminal proceedings pertaining to Section 376 I.P.C. where the prosecutrix is a minor. Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the Courts should be careful in quashing such criminal proceedings and should carefully perused the material on record before the petition is allowed. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it is not only the legal system that that has cause any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequences that 7 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 follow which take a turn but the at the same time it was noticed that whenever the victim has married the accused when her problems and trauma should not allow to continue beyond her marriage and certainly no women would want her husband to be imprisonment.

12. Examining the case of the present case, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be serve by permitting the applicant to prosecute in the aforesaid case and accordingly, relying upon the judgments as quoted hereinabove the present application U/S 528 BNSS is hereby allowed and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1924 of 2024 (State Vs. Akash @ Vikas), arising out of cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as charge-sheet dated 14.02.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh are hereby quashed. September 15, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. Learned AGA states that notice has been served on opposite party no.2. Accordingly, service of notice on opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

3. The present application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1924 of 2024 (State Vs. Akash @ Vikas), arising out of cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as charge-sheet dated 14.02.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a first information report was lodged on 13.01.2024 at Police Station Barla, District Aligarh under Section 363 I.P.C. by the father of the prosecutrix stating that his minor daughter is missing from his home from 13.01.2024. It has been stated that subsequently the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded stating that she is 17 years of age and is a student of Class 10 and she knows the applicant from last 5 to 6 months and is also in love relationship with him and on her own violation on 13.01.2024 had left her house and went with the applicant to Moradabad. After coming back the police had arrested them and her statement was recorded. Subsequently, she has reiterated her 2 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.

5. It has been further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix and the applicant have solemnized their marriage on

06.02.2025 at Shri Bala Ji Pooja Kendra, Subhash Nagar, Ward No.08, Bajpur Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand and subsequently, had approached the Uttrakhand High Court and sought a protection order in Writ Petition No.121 of 2025 wherein an order was passed in their favour on 27.02.2025. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the prosecutrix are living together as husband and wife and accordingly had approached this Court for quashing of the said proceedings.

6. In the present case, the averments made in the petition are accompanied by an affidavit filed by the prosecutrix who has stated that her age is 18 years residence of Bazpur Gaon, Post Maheshpura Bazpur, Po. Bazpur, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the applicant giving details of the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2025. The State on the other hand has also filed a counter affidavit wherein also they have not denied the aspect of marriage of the applicant and the prosecutrix but have stated that the marriage cannot be accepted because the prosecutrix is a minor.

7. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances a prayer has been made for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. From perusal of the aforesaid facts it is evident that the proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the first information report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix under Section 363 I.P.C. relating to an incident which has occurred on 13.01.2024 when the prosecutrix was alleged to have fled from her home along with the applicant.

8. It is the consistent view of the prosecutrix that she is in a relationship with the accused from 5 to 6 months since the said statement was made by her when statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We find that in the present petition under Section 528 BNSS the affidavit has been sworn by the prosecutrix and accordingly, this Court has no reason to doubt the un-controverted facts which are borne from the records that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in love relationship and the prosecutrix had left her home on her own volition and 3 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 subsequently they have got marriage on 06.02.2025 and are living together as husband and wife.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only aspect is that as per the prosecution the prosecurtrix was a minor on the date she had left her house and hence even sexual relations were maintained with the applicant still it would amount to rape inasmuch as the prosecutrix being minor was incapable of giving any consent. Accordingly, the question falls before this Court as to whether the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed or not. In this regard we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023 has dealt with a particular aspect which has engaged this Court in the present case. It would be profitable to quote the relevant provisions of the aforesaid judgment:- "3. This Court by a detailed judgment dated 20th August 2024, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the verdict of the learned Special Court to the extent of the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under clause (n) of sub-section 2 and sub-section (3) of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This Court confirmed the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. However, the sentencing was postponed for the reasons recorded in the judgment. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, the basic facts of the case have been mentioned and in paragraph 3, the findings recorded by the High Court have been mentioned. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the judgment are relevant which read thus: “2. The victim girl was fourteen years old at the time of the incident. The victim's mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 29th May 2018. The victim's mother stated in her complaint that the victim, who was her minor daughter, escaped from her home at 5 : 30 p.m. on 20th May 2018 without informing anyone. On inquiry, it was found that the accused enticed her to leave her house. The accused did so with the help of his two sisters. The victim's mother repeatedly visited the house of the accused and requested him to facilitate the return of her daughter. However, the victim did not come back. A female child was born to the victim. Admittedly, the accused is the biological father of the child. There was a gross delay in the investigation, and the accused was arrested on 19th December 2021. The chargesheet was filed on 27th January 2022 against the accused for the offences for which he was convicted. In addition, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. We may note here that as the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act found that there was no evidence of marriage between the victim and the accused, the charge under Section 9 of the 2006 Act was held as not substantiated. 4 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025

3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC were not made out, and therefore, the High Court acquitted the accused for the said two offences. Considering the factual scenario that the High Court noticed, it purported to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr. P.C.’) to set aside the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sub-sections 2(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC. The High Court noted that the mother of the victim had disowned her and therefore, the victim was continuously residing with the accused along with their minor child. 4. The Suo Motu writ petition was initiated based on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for challenging the impugned judgment. The State Government has preferred the criminal appeal to challenge the order of acquittal. 5. Considering the nature of the observations made by the High Court and the findings recorded by it, this Court appointed Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew, the learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Both of them have rendered valuable assistance to the Court. Along with them, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Advocate-on-Record, has also assisted the Court. We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government and the learned counsel representing the accused and the victim. The learned senior counsel for the State Government has taken a fair stand. The accused and the victim are on the same page and want to continue their cohabitation.”

19. The preliminary report of the Committee indicates that in 2017, the victim met the accused through her neighbour who happened to be the sister of the accused. At that time, their ages were 13 and 25 years respectively. It is claimed that over a period of time they fell in love and on 20th May 2018, the victim left her home. She married the accused at a temple. Within nine days, on 29th May 2018, the victim's mother lodged a police complaint. As a result of registration of the FIR, the police placed the victim in Narendrapur Sanlaap home. She was there for a month, and thereafter, she was sent back to her parents. She resumed her education at school and was promoted to class 10. While she was studying in class 10, she once again left her parental home and started living with the accused. Perhaps this period was very crucial in her life as she felt stigmatised and humiliated, as recorded in the preliminary report. She noticed that the entire village was discussing her case. Her siblings were taunting her. She was subjected to the vigilance of her mother, who accompanied her to school and tuition classes. Given these circumstances, the victim might have felt compelled to leave her home. 24. What troubles us is the issue of sentencing. The reports of the Committee stare at our faces. Though the victim did not treat the incident as a heinous crime, she suffered because of it. This was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings of our society, our legal system and her family. In fact, she did not get any opportunity 5 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 to make informed choice. The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her. Now, she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband. Now, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive of her small family. 25. After having read the reports and having interacted with the Committee as well as the victim, we are of the view that if we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself. As compared to the situation in 2018, she is better placed today. Now she is comfortable with her small family. She along with the accused, is concentrating on their daughter and they want to ensure that she gets quality education. At the same time, as recorded in the final report, the victim is attending school and is desperate to complete her school education. Though the State has offered to enroll her in some vocational course, she is keen on completing her education, at least up to graduation. 26. In law, we have no option but to sentence the accused and send him to jail for undergoing the minimum punishment prescribed by the Statute. However, in this case, the society, the family of the victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim. The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects. 31. Hence, we pass the following order: a) We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier; b) We direct the State to take following measures: i) To act as a true guardian of the victim and her child; ii) To provide a better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of few months from today; iii) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim till Xth standard examination and if she desires to take up education for a degree course, till the completion of degree course. After she passes her Xth standard examination, the State can offer her vocational training, obviously, at the cost of the State; iv) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the child up to Xth standard and ensuring that she is educated in a very good school in the vicinity of the place of residence of the victim; and v) To endeavour to take the assistance of NGOs or public-spirited citizens for the purpose of securing the debts incurred by the victim as a one-time measure. c) We direct the State to file compliance report giving details of the implementation of the directions contained in clause (b) above. The first compliance report shall be filed by 15th July 2025. Thereafter, 6 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 compliance reports shall be filed after the interval of every six months. The first compliance report will be considered on 25th July 2025. We direct the Registry to list the case on 25th July 2025. d) Issue notice to the Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The notice is made returnable on 25th July 2025. A copy of the judgment dated 20th August 2024 and this judgment shall accompany notice; e) Immediately on service of notice, the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development shall appoint a Committee of experts to deal with the suggestions of the learned amici curiae. Senior officers of the State shall be a part of the Committee. If necessary, the Committee can also consult the learned senior counsel appointed as amici curiae. Immediately on service of notice, the Secretary shall constitute a Committee. The members of the Committee constituted by this Court shall be permanent invitees to the said Committee; and f) The Committee will submit a detailed report before the returnable date to this Court. To consider the implementation of the suggestions of the learned amici curiae based on the said report, this Court will pass further directions from time to time;"

10. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafat Lal & Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 (6) SCC 589 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1806 of 2021 has held that no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the parties and it would be futile exercise. This has clearly stated that she was in love with abductor and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married with the abductor on her own free will without any influence being exercised upon her. Accordingly, the court was of the considered view that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances ends of justice would be secured by quashing the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom.

11. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no injunction upon the Courts to refrain from quashing any criminal proceedings pertaining to Section 376 I.P.C. where the prosecutrix is a minor. Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the Courts should be careful in quashing such criminal proceedings and should carefully perused the material on record before the petition is allowed. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it is not only the legal system that that has cause any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequences that 7 NA528 No. 22137 of 2025 follow which take a turn but the at the same time it was noticed that whenever the victim has married the accused when her problems and trauma should not allow to continue beyond her marriage and certainly no women would want her husband to be imprisonment.

12. Examining the case of the present case, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be serve by permitting the applicant to prosecute in the aforesaid case and accordingly, relying upon the judgments as quoted hereinabove the present application U/S 528 BNSS is hereby allowed and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1924 of 2024 (State Vs. Akash @ Vikas), arising out of cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as charge-sheet dated 14.02.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh are hereby quashed. September 15, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad