Allahabad High Court Quashes POCSO Case, Cites 'Pious Duty' to Secure Justice for Married Couple

Allahabad, India – In a significant ruling on the scope of its inherent powers, the Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act against a man who subsequently married the alleged victim. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, emphasizing the court's duty to "secure the ends of justice," held that continuing the prosecution would be a futile exercise and an instrument of harassment, given the couple's valid marriage and the victim's unwavering support for the accused.

The court invoked its authority under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asserting that its power is analogous to the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice."

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on April 23, 2024, by the girl's father, accusing Ashwani Anand of abducting his minor daughter under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, along with charges under the POCSO Act. However, the case took a decisive turn when the alleged victim, in her statements to the police, denied the allegations entirely. She stated that she had left home of her own accord and had not been with the applicant.

After the victim attained the age of majority, she and the applicant, Ashwani Anand, solemnized their marriage on June 23, 2025, which was duly registered. Subsequently, Anand approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case, an application supported by an affidavit from his wife—the very individual named as the victim in the FIR.

Clashing Arguments

Counsel for the Applicant argued that since the parties are now legally married and living together, and the alleged victim herself has refuted the charges on affidavit, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.

The State (Learned A.G.A.) vehemently opposed the plea, contending that the POCSO Act addresses a non-compoundable offence against society. The State's counsel argued that a crime, once committed, cannot be erased by subsequent events like marriage and that the accused must face a full trial. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu .

Court's Reasoning: Law Must Yield to Justice

Justice Shailendra undertook a detailed analysis of the High Court's inherent powers, drawing a parallel between Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) and Article 142 of the Constitution. The court rejected the notion that High Courts should feel constrained in exercising these powers, even when the Supreme Court has acted in similar cases under its wider constitutional mandate.

The judgment distinguished the State's reliance on the K. Kirubakaran case, noting that the Supreme Court itself had declared that its order in that specific case should not be treated as a precedent. Instead, the court cited a series of Supreme Court judgments, including K. Dhandapani (2022) and Dasari Srikant (2024) , where criminal proceedings, including those under the POCSO Act, were quashed after the accused and victim married.

In a powerful articulation of judicial duty, the court observed:

> "Judiciary being a very strong pillar of our Constitution, the object of the courts... is to deliver justice; nothing more and nothing less. 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."

The court questioned the logic of forcing a trial where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. It highlighted the practical difficulties and harassment the couple would face if the case were to proceed.

> "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... It would be surprising to see as to why precious time and resources of judicial system should be wasted in adopting such a recourse where result is bound to be the same, i.e., discharge/acquittal of the accused."

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the case was a fit one for the exercise of inherent powers, the court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings in Criminal Case No. 121 of 2025 against Ashwani Anand.

This judgment reinforces the principle that while offences under the POCSO Act are grave, the High Court's duty to secure justice allows it to intervene in exceptional circumstances. Where the victim has attained majority, entered into a valid marriage with the accused, and unequivocally denies the commission of any offence, the court can step in to prevent the continuation of a prosecution that would serve no purpose other than to disrupt a marital relationship and waste judicial resources.