Forcing 'Happy Couple' Through Trial is Harassment: Allahabad HC Quashes POCSO Case

ALLAHABAD, INDIA – In a significant judgment reinforcing the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of legal processes, the Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a man who subsequently married the alleged victim. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled that compelling a happily married couple to endure a trial destined for an inevitable acquittal would be an "instrument of harassment" and an "irony of fate."

The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asserting that the judiciary cannot remain a "silent spectator" when the ends of justice demand proactive intervention. This ruling adds to the evolving jurisprudence concerning the application of the stringent, non-compoundable POCSO Act in cases involving consensual relationships that culminate in marriage.

---

Background of the Case: From Abduction FIR to Marital Union

The case originated in April 2024 when a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a father, alleging that his daughter had been abducted by the petitioner, Ashwani Anand. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (abducting to compel marriage) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

However, the narrative presented by the prosecution was flatly contradicted by the alleged victim herself. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, she categorically denied the allegations of abduction, stating unequivocally that she had left her home of her own free will. She also denied any physical relationship with the accused at that time.

The case took a decisive turn when, in June 2024, after indisputably attaining the age of majority, the victim and the accused solemnized their marriage. The union was formally registered under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. To further underscore her position, the young woman filed an affidavit in the High Court, explicitly supporting her husband's plea to quash the entire criminal proceeding against him.

The State, however, maintained a rigid stance, arguing that offenses under the POCSO Act are crimes against society and, being non-compoundable in nature, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise or subsequent marriage between the parties involved.

---

Judicial Reasoning: Pragmatism Over Procedural Rigidity

Justice Shailendra, in a detailed 11-page order, rejected the State's formulaic argument, opting instead for a pragmatic approach focused on securing substantive justice. The Court underscored the futility of proceeding with a trial where the star witness—the victim—had not only disavowed the prosecution's story but was now legally married to the accused.

The bench observed that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose other than to waste the "precious time and resources of the judicial system." Justice Shailendra eloquently described the potential scenario as an "irony of fate," questioning the logic of "dragging the prosecution and defence for months and years" only to record the statement of a hostile witness, which would inevitably lead to an acquittal.

The Court delivered a powerful critique of such a procedural approach, stating, "Compelling a lady in such matters to visit court premises for months and years for the purposes of getting her own husband acquitted where he is facing threat of punishment for doing some wrong with his wife which she does not admit, would be an instrument of harassment."

The judgment also highlighted the social and personal toll such a protracted legal battle would take on the woman, noting she would face "all evil eyes, criticism and all sorts of comments which may be against dignity of a woman," in addition to the financial and emotional burden.

---

The High Court's Inherent Powers and the Pursuit of Justice

At the heart of the ruling was a robust defense of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now 528 BNSS). Justice Shailendra emphasized that these powers are not merely decorative but are conferred by the legislature to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.

"We would fail in our duty if we do not use the powers conferred upon us by the Legislature... by self imposed restrictions upon us forgetting about the purpose for which we have been blessed to occupy the pious position as a Judge," the Court remarked. It asserted that to not exercise these powers in such a clear-cut case would "defeat the very purpose of law and would render a written statutory provision for inherent powers a mere waste paper work of the legislature."

Drawing a parallel with the Supreme Court's expansive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice," the High Court positioned its inherent powers as a vital tool to "bury the lis" (the dispute) at an early stage when the outcome is manifest.

The judgment also offered a profound reflection on the duty of a judge, stating that the judiciary's role is not passive. "What should a Judge's response be when the person who comes knocking at the doors of his court is a woman... having no resources to fight? The judiciary cannot remain a mere bystander or silent spectator but it must become an active participant in the judicial process." The Court concluded this thought by affirming that a judge's "pious duty" is to "wipe every tear from every eye."

Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu , the bench concluded that the circumstances of the present case warranted intervention. With the parties now in a valid marital relationship and the victim fully supporting the quashing of the case, the Allahabad High Court allowed the plea and quashed the charge sheet and all associated criminal proceedings against Ashwani Anand.