The court held that marriage between the accused and the victim, along with their living together, can quash criminal proceedings under POCSO, reaffirming the principle that continued prosecution in such circumstances serves no purpose.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ranu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for the State of U.P.

2. Present application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.187 of 2017 (State vs. Wasiullah and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC)' and Section 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') against the applicant no.1 and under Sections 504 and 506 IPC against the applicant nos.2 & 3, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar as well as impugned Chargesheet dated 16.03.2017 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 23.03.2017, pending in the court of learned Special Court, POCSO Act, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2/first informant lodged a first information report against the applicants on 19.01.2017 in respect of the alleged incident dated 30.12.2016. The first information report was registered as Case Crime No.64 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, wherein allegation has been levelled by the informant/opposite party no.2 that her minor daughter has been enticed away by the applicant no.1 on 30.12.2016 at 5.00 PM and when he went to the house of applicant no.1, his other family members, including the applicants no.2 and 3, had hurled abuses and threatened him with dire consequences.

4. The Investigating Officer recovered the victim on 26.01.2017 and her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.), wherein, she stated that she went with the applicant no.1 on her own will and she claimed herself to be a major girl. She further stated that she wanted to solemnize her marriage/Nikah with the applicant no.1. She lastly stated that her family members lodged a false first information report against the applicants. Even in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, before the Magistrate on 09.03.2017, the victim had stated that she used to know the applicant no.1 and went to Mumbai with him and they stayed there for about 75 days. She clearly stated that no sexual intercourse had taken place between them and when she came to know about lodging of the FIR, she came back to her house.

5. The victim was medically examined on 28.01.2017 and as per report, no injury was found over the body of the victim, copy of the medical report has been appended at page 35 of the application. Thereafter, the victim was referred to the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar for ascertaining her age and as per report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 02.02.2017, the victim was aged about 18 years. Once the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses, he submitted chargesheet in this case on 16.03.2017 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide his order dated 23.03.2017. Thereafter, the applicants challenged the proceedings of aforesaid Sessions Trial No.187 of 2017 before this Court and the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025, where the parties amicably resolved their dispute and arrived at a compromise on 08.10.2025.

6. It is sub