Criminality, If Any, Now Stands Washed Off: Allahabad High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Marriage with Prosecutrix and Birth of Child

“Trial Would Break a Peacefully Settled Family—Court Cannot Shut Its Eyes to Ground Realities”, In a significant ruling that acknowledges evolving personal circumstances and long-term matrimonial peace, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, after finding that he had married the prosecutrix, fathered a child from the union, and was now living peacefully as her husband.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ruled that continuing with the criminal trial would serve no purpose, and instead, disrupt a family that has been settled for years.

“It is not merely about whether an offence occurred in the past,” the Court observed, “but whether continuing prosecution in the present context advances justice or merely causes avoidable suffering. Where the prosecutrix is now the wife of the accused and they are peacefully cohabiting with their child, the criminality, if any, now stands washed off.”

“POCSO Provisions Do Not Apply Where Victim Is Found to Be Major and Denies Any Sexual Act”—Medical Report and Victim’s Statement Rule Out Offence

The proceedings stemmed from an FIR lodged in January 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the accused, Wasiullah, had kidnapped a minor girl and committed sexual offences. However, upon investigation, it emerged that the victim had gone with him voluntarily, had refused any claim of sexual assault, and was medically determined to be 18 years old.

The victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC confirmed that she had accompanied the accused willingly and no sexual act had occurred during their stay together. The medical report dated 28 January 2017 found no signs of physical injury, and a subsequent report by the Chief Medical Officer dated 2 February 2017 fixed her age at 18 years, putting her outside the protection of the POCSO Act.

“When the prosecutrix is major, refuses allegations, and no medical evidence exists of any offence, continuation under POCSO is unsustainable in law,” the Court ruled.

“Subsequent Marriage and Birth of Child Tilt the Balance—Court Must Consider the Real-Life Consequences of Trial”

The couple solemnized marriage after the incident and a son was born on 9 August 2018, a fact accepted by the complainant (victim's father) during a settlement recorded at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court.

The Court recorded that “the marriage is not in dispute, the birth of the child is proved by certificate, and the parties have expressly withdrawn all claims against each other.” The informant stated he had no objection to quashing the proceedings and had signed a detailed compromise agreement affirming the couple’s marriage and peaceful cohabitation.

“On the above conspectus, there is no justification to continue the criminal prosecution that has lost both factual and legal foundation,” the Court said.

“Where Family Is Built on Compromise, Law Must Not Become an Instrument of Disruption”—High Court Applies Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Singh relied extensively on binding precedents from the Supreme Court, especially the judgments in K. Dhandapani v. State, Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P., Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Dasari Srikant v. State of Telangana, to affirm that where the accused and the prosecutrix have entered into marriage and are raising a child peacefully, the courts must consider these subsequent developments.

“The Court cannot be blind to the ground reality. The prosecutrix now lives as the wife of the accused, their child is growing up, and the marriage has endured peacefully for years. These factors cannot be ignored in the name of rigid procedure,” the Court held.

Reproducing paragraphs from the Dhandapani judgment, the Court noted that even in more serious allegations under POCSO, the Apex Court had exercised its extraordinary powers to prevent the breakdown of families formed after the alleged offence.

The Court made a pointed observation that “if such trials are allowed to proceed, they do not serve justice, but endanger the very peace the justice system is meant to protect.”

“Not All Offences Are Beyond Reconciliation When Life Has Moved Forward”—Court Distinguishes Precedents Cited by State

While the State had opposed quashing, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan and State of Kerala v. Hafsal Rahman, the High Court found these to be distinguishable.

“In the present case,” the Court noted, “the prosecutrix was a major at the time of incident, no sexual act is alleged or proved, and a stable family has emerged from the alleged offence. That factual setting was absent in the authorities cited by the State.”

Referring to the extensive jurisprudence from the Apex Court, the High Court ruled that “the power under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS is not limited to technical legal categories but must be exercised to secure the ends of justice.”

“When Continuation of Trial Becomes a Mere Formality, It Must Be Halted”—Court Cautions Against Wasting Judicial Time

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that continuing such prosecutions would not only serve no public interest, but also overburden courts already drowning in caseloads.

“The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit, particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets,” Justice Singh remarked.

Finding that chances of conviction were now remote, and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, the Court allowed the application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the chargesheet dated 16 March 2017 and the summoning order dated 23 March 2017, pending before the Special Court under POCSO, Sant Kabir Nagar.

Date of Decision: 20 November 2025