Catastrophic To Allow Law To Take Its Own Course: MP High Court Quashes POCSO, BNS FIR After Victim And Accused Marry

"When they have already solemnized marriage and are residing happily, it would be rather harsh to allow the law to take its own course, instead of interfering at this juncture." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 2, 2026, held that criminal proceedings involving serious offences under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) can be quashed if the accused and the victim have solemnized their marriage.

A single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that allowing the trial to continue would be "catastrophic" for both parties, especially when the victim has explicitly assented to the quashment and is residing happily with the petitioner.

The matter arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar, at the instance of the prosecutrix's parents. The petitioner was booked under stringent provisions of the BNS and the POCSO Act. Despite being a consenting party, the prosecutrix was allegedly forced by her parents to depose against the petitioner in the trial court. Following the recording of her statement, the parties settled their dispute out of court, solemnized their marriage, and approached the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The primary question before the court was whether ongoing criminal proceedings involving heinous offences under the POCSO Act and the BNS could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS based on a post-deposition compromise and subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix.

Prosecutrix's Consent And Valid Settlement

During the hearing, both parties appeared before the High Court and confirmed their compromise. The court noted the prosecutrix's clear and voluntary statement that she had settled the matter and did not intend to prosecute the petitioner any further. The bench took into account the petitioner's submission that while the evidence in the trial court was almost closed, the peculiar post-deposition development of marriage warranted judicial intervention.

Continuation Of Trial Deemed Catastrophic

Evaluating the impact of the ongoing criminal trial on the newly married couple, Justice Abhyankar emphasized the practical realities of the situation. The court reasoned that any adverse judgment from the trial court would irreparably damage the lives of both individuals who have chosen to build a life together. The judge remarked that it would be overly rigid and destructive to blindly let the legal prosecution conclude when the parties are residing happily as husband and wife.

"If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the Trial Court, it would be catastrophic for both the parties... further proceedings against the petitioner before the Trial Court would be of no avail to both the parties."

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent

To justify the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in a matter involving statutory rape charges, the High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another (2022). The bench extracted relevant portions of the apex court's ruling, which established that while constitutional courts should normally be slow to quash proceedings in heinous crimes, they are not foreclosed from examining whether a settlement will foster harmony.

No Purpose In Prolonging Proceedings

The court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that when a complainant is no longer supporting the prosecution's case, a criminal trial will ultimately end in nothing but an acquittal. The bench observed that denying the relief would merely force a young woman to undergo the prolonged agony of a trial that serves no rehabilitative or punitive purpose. The High Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would merely add to the burden of the criminal courts without serving the interests of justice.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, alongside Sections 3, 4, 5l, 5j(ii), and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. All subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court were permanently set aside, bringing the legal ordeal to an end for the married couple.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026