-
by sayum
19 August 2026 7:06 AM
“Continuation Of Incarceration Would Be Harassment To Both Husband And Wife”, In a significant exercise of its extraordinary powers, the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR, criminal proceedings, and even a conviction under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act, after noting that the accused and the victim have since married and are living a “happily married life”.
Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” and held that continuation of incarceration in such circumstances would amount to harassment not only to the accused but also to the victim, who is now his wife.
“Even Though Victim Was Minor At Relevant Time, Subsequent Marriage And Settlement Can Be Considered Under Article 142”
The case arose from FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act. The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court in December 2023, and his plea for suspension of sentence was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in October 2025.
During the pendency of proceedings, a material development occurred: the appellant and the victim solemnized marriage and filed a joint application before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings, and conviction.
The State opposed the plea, emphasizing that the victim was a minor (aged about 16 years) at the time of the offence and that the conviction was legally justified.
The prosecution case alleged that the appellant had lured a minor girl and committed offences punishable under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. Following investigation and trial, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant and imposed sentence.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence, which was declined. Thereafter, the matter reached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
Subsequently, both the appellant and the victim—now legally married—filed a joint application before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and conviction.
The principal issue before the Court was whether, despite the seriousness of offences under POCSO Act and the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the Court could invoke Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings and conviction in light of subsequent marriage and settlement.
The Court took note of the changed circumstances and observed:
“Although victim-respondent No.2 may have been a minor at the relevant point of time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and respondent No.2 are since married and are stated to be leading a happily married life.”
The Bench emphasized that the victim herself was no longer interested in prosecuting the case and had joined the appellant in seeking quashing of proceedings.
Exercise of Power Under Article 142
The Court held that the present case was a fit instance for invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice between the parties.
In a crucial observation, the Court stated:
“Any continuation of the incarceration of the appellant at this stage would not only be a harassment to him but also to respondent No.2 who is no longer interested in prosecuting her husband.”
The Court underscored that the marital relationship and reconciliation between the parties had materially altered the situation, warranting intervention.
Quashing Of FIR, Trial And Conviction
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court proceeded to quash: “FIR No.129 of 2022 and the sessions trial leading up to the judgment of conviction and sentence…”
Consequently, the appellant was discharged of all offences, including those under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act.
The Court also noted that the pending criminal appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court had become infructuous and disposed of the same.
Date of Decision: 10 March 2026
