Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI
Mohan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Key Points: - The minor’s consent is legally immaterial; any sexual act with a person below 18 constitutes an offence under POCSO irrespective of willingness. (!) - Offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO are non-compoundable; inherent powers cannot be used to indirectly permit compounding based on a compromise or marriage promise. (!) (!) - The court declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order, or proceedings; continuation of prosecution is not abuse of process and quashing would undermine protective statutory framework. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing petition for pocso on minor's compromise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. victim minor confirmed; consent legally immaterial. (Para 5 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. consensual relation and marriage intent justify quashing. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. minor's consent irrelevant; pocso non-compoundable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. marriage promise cannot dilute pocso liability. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. prima facie case; no quashing of proceedings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 14.03.2024 and the summoning order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Session Trial No. 16 of 2024, arising out of FIR No. 10 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Almora, for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Applicant has also prayed for compounding of the offences on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the Applicant and Respondent No.2.
2. The State’s case, as borne out from the FIR and
Consent of minor irrelevant under POCSO; non-compoundable sexual offences against minors cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC based on compromise or marriage promise.
Court cannot be a silent spectator to or turn its back on distressed family.
Point of law: Section 320 of Cr. P.C does not limit or control exercise of powers vested in Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C
Point of law: Section 320 of Cr. P.C does not limit or control exercise of powers vested in Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The court established that while serious offences typically cannot be settled privately, the unique circumstances of marriage and children can justify quashing proceedings to protect family integrity....
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.
The court emphasized the need for legislative amendments to address cases involving adolescents in relationships and the implications of the POCSO Act on such situations.
Ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered in accordance with laws enacted by Legislature.
Serious offences under the PoCSO Act cannot be quashed based on victim's retraction, as they affect public interest and societal morals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
