Allahabad High Court
Shyam Mohan Nishad And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:68285 Reserved on 23.03.2026 Delivered on 01.04.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9482 of 2024 Shyam Mohan Nishad And Another .....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) :
Yashwant Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Dinesh Kumar Patel, G.A. Court No. - 80 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Dinesh Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.176 of 2023 (State Vs. Shyam Mohan Nishad) arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2022, u/s 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chitrakoot as well as chargesheet dated 16.03.2023, cognizance order dated 23.03.2023 and the impugned order dated 04.04.2023 on the basis of the compromise deed dated 05.03.2024.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.4/first informant has lodged the first information report against the applicant no.1 on 15.11.2022 at 19:07 hours in respect of alleged incident dated 14.11.2022 at 20:00 hours. The first information report was registered as Case Crime No.222 of 2022, u/s 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, wherein allegation has been levelled by the informant/opposite party no.4 that his niece aged about 16 years left her house on 14.11.2022 at 8 pm. to meet the nature's call but did not return. The informant came to know that victim has been kidnapped by the applicant no.1. The victim had taken half kg of silver ornaments and Rs.30,000/- cash alongwith her. During course of investigation, the police recovered the victim and her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she stated that she is aged about 19 years and she left her house on her own will and joined the company of the applicant no.1. Thereafter they went to Allahabad where marriage was solemnized between the applicant no.1 and the victim and they started living together in a rented accommodation. After sometime, they went to the village of the applicant no.1. The victim was medically examined on 03.12.2022 and no mark of any external or internal injury was seen on her body, copy of the medical report has been appended as Annexure-7 to the application. The investigating officer collected school record of the victim and as per school certificate, date of birth of the victim was 05.04.2005, therefore, the victim was aged about 17 years and 7 months at the time of the alleged incident. Thereafter the victim was produced before the learned Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that her parents had died and she left her house on her own will, she is aged about 19 years, she went to Allahabad where marriage between the applicant no.1 and the victim was solemnized thereafter she went to the village of the applicant no.1 and started living in the village as a married couple. His brother has lodged a false report against the applicant no.1.
4. The Investigating Officer completed investigation in this case and observed that the victim was aged about 17 years, 7 months and 9 days at the time of alleged incident, therefore, he added section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act in this case and investigation was completed by him and chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 16.03.2023, under Section 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. The learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 23.03.2023. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2023, which is impugned herein.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that it is admitted case of the prosecution that the victim left her house on her own and she was not enticed away by the applicant no.1. The victim has not alleged that she was subjected to rape by the applicant no.1, therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. It is also submitted that a joint petition has been filed by the applicant no.1/accused and the victim and there is a joint affidavit of the accused and the victim. It is also submitted that a compromise deed dated 05.03.2024 has been appended as Annexure-13 of the present application which is duly signed by the applicant no.1/accused, victim and the informant of the present case, wherein it is mentioned that the accused-applicant no.1 and the victim are living together as a married couple and the first information report was lodged under misconception. The marriage certificate has already been appended as Annexure-11 to the present application.
6. The counsel for the applicant further submitted that the victim was a major girl at the time of alleged incident. She clearly stated in her statements recorded before the police and the learned magistrate that she was aged about 19 years and a wrong entry has been made in her school record. In fact her date of birth, as per Parivar Register, appended at page 77 of the application, is 07.04.2003, therefore, she was above 19 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The applicant no.1 and the victim had applied online for registration of their marriage, which is also appended at page 81-83 to this application. It is further submitted that a compromise had taken place between the contesting parties on 05.03.2024 which has been verified by the learned court concerned and a report has been sent by the learned trial court which is already on record. However, a certified copy of the same has also been appended as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. The learned trial court has observed that the contesting parties appeared before the court and they were identified by their counsel and they had accepted the contents of the compromise deed dated 05.03.2024. It is submitted that since the compromise had taken place between the parties, which has been duly verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.05.2024, the applicant no.1 and the victim have solemnized their marriage and their marriage has been accepted by their family members, therefore, proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4/informant had also put his appearance and he also accepted that the compromise had taken place between the parties and marriage of the applicant no.1-accused and the victim has been accepted by the informant and his other family members, however, no counter affidavit was filed by the learned counsel for the informant.
8. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not dispute the fact that the marriage of the victim has been solemnized with the applicant no.1. He further submitted that since the prosecutrix was a child within the definition of term 'child' as defined in the POCSO Act, therefore, subsequent development, if any will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicants. Further, he admitted that no allegation was levelled by the victim against the applicant no.1 in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in respect of her alleged kidnapping or rape.
9. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per Parivar Register, Aadhar Card and Voter Card appended alongwith the application, the victim was aged about 19 years inspite of that chargesheet was wrongly submitted by the Investigating Officer under the POCSO Act. The victim in her statements, recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., did not level any allegation against the applicant no.1 that she was enticed away or subjected to rape by the applicant no.1 at any point of time inspite of that the applicant no.1 was wrongly chargesheeted under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC. The victim stated in her statement that she was a major girl aged about 19 years and she had gone with the accused/applicant no.1 voluntarily. She further submitted that she had solemnized marriage with the applicant in Allahabad (Prayagraj) and she started living with the applicant no.1/accused in her family, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case when the victim being a major girl has herself disputed the facts stated in the FIR version, it cannot be said that any offence under Section 363, 366A and 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is made out.
11. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for applicants on Juhi Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2005(13) SCC 376; Suhani and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (3) AICLR 183 and this Court's decisions in Reena vs. State of U.P., 2012 (2) ACR 2349; Shaheen Parveen and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015(7) ADJ 713 and Sunil Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another, (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5471 of 2016), decided on 21.10.2016.
12. The applicant is accused of committing an offence under Sections 363 and 366A and 376 of the IPC. Section 363 of the IPC provides that whoever kidnaps any person from lawful guardianship shall be punished in terms of sentence provided in the provision.
13. "Kidnapping from lawful guardianship" has been defined under Section 361 of the IPC. The provision when extracted reads as under:
"Whoever takes or entices any minor under *[sixteen] years of age if a male, or under **[eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation : The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception : This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose."
14. Section 366 of the IPC inheres that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with a sentence, as provided in the provision. At the time of considering whether on admitting the allegations made in the F.I.R., offence has been committed or not, the ingredients of the offence are required to be considered in context of the evidence collected during the course of investigation.
15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Court has minutely examined the facts that have emerged on investigation of the case. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix has attained the age of discretion, as also age of majority on the date of the incident. As per Parivar Register the date of birth of the victim is 07.04.2003, therefore, she was more than 19 years of age at the time of alleged incident. Assuming, that the girl was a minor even then she did not level any accusations against the accused-applicant no.1
16. Somewhat similar facts came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Juhi Devi Versus State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 376, where Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that prosecutrix who has attained the age of discretion, has a right to enjoy her liberties by virtue of constitutional guarantee. The relevant para is quoted below :--
"2. The petitioner herein is alleged to have married another person of her age and the 5th respondent herein, the father of the petitioner, objected to the said marriage. It seems that the petitioner had eloped with that person and the father of the petitioner-5th respondent, has filed a complaint and the petitioner was produced before the C.J.M., Patna. The petitioner claims that she was major and voluntarily left with her husband. The father of petitioner alleged that the petitioner was a minor and the question of age was referred to a Medical Board. The Medical Board opined that as on 17.05.2003, the petitioner must have been aged between 16 and 17 years. However, the father of the petitioner produced two certificates before the Revisional Court and contended that her date of birth is 12.10.1985 and she has not attained majority. However, the medical report shows that she must have been aged more than 16 years, even on 17.05.2003. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that she must have attained majority and her stay at the remand home would not be in the interest of justice and we think that her continued stay at the remand home would be detrimental and she would be in a better environment by living with the person whom she had allegedly married. (Emphasis supplied)
17. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Reena Versus State of U.P. and Others (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. -10180 of 2012) decided on 24.5.2012 observed that in pure and simple case of elopement of prosecutrix it is to be seen that her right to enjoy her liberties by virtue of the constitutional guarantees are not curtailed or encroached upon. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted below:-
"We find from facts of the case that it was a pure and simple case of elopement of petitioner, Smt. Reena with Rabdullah and the petitioner, thereafter went straight away to his house from where she appears recovered. There was some dispute in respect of the age of the girl but we find from argument appearing at page 20 of the present petition that the Chief Medical Officer, Maharajganj had assessed her 18 years of age. Thus, the lady was undisputedly above 18 years of age, if we add three years to the medically assessed age. In our considered view in case of being a conflict between the age recorded in any school document and that assessed by the doctor then only for the present purposes, the court should lean towards acting upon the opinion of the doctor furnished after carrying out scientific tests to assess the age of a victim. This is necessary as liberty of a person has to be protected. No person could be deprived of his liberty unless reasonable procedure has been adopted. Medical opinion on age may not be exact, but it is generally acceptance and it is based on scientific method of assessing the age. As such, inspite of there being some sort of margin in assessing the age and actual age, there could be chances that the assessed age is almost exact.
We have already noted that the personal liberty of a person should be paramount consideration in such cases and keeping that in view and for protecting the personal liberty of a person, the court should lean towards considering the medical age than to consider the age which is recorded in school documents. Besides, there is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner, Smt. Reena had eloped with Rabdullah on 3-3-2011 and had wet into his house and was living there. ...Under the present set of facts, there could not be any doubt that it is a simple and pure case of elopement and as such no offence or offences could be said to be constituted under the admitted facts.
...There is no age, as regards the personal liberty of a person. Anyone who is born as a human being and who is found living in India even if he is not an Indian, has a right to enjoy his or her liberties by virtue of the constitutional guarantees. Any order which curtails or encroaches upon the liberties of such a person and has always to be held falling short of the constitution requirements and safeguards and, as such, we have to struck down the same in exercise of the powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. "
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In the instant case, the point for consideration is whether the applicant has committed offence in context of the victim or not. It will be appropriate here to mention the judgement dated 23.07.2015 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3519(MB) of 2015 (Shaheen Parveen and Another Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, and Others), where this Court observed that a girl who has attained the age of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority and is capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her, cannot be said to be a victim of inducement, particularly when the case of the victim/girl herself is that it was on her initiative and on account of her voluntary act that she had gone with the boy and got married to him. In such circumstances, desire of the girl/victim is required to be seen. Ingredients of Section 361 of the I.P.C. are required to be considered accordingly, and not in mechanical or technical interpretation. In this case the Charge sheet under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, was quashed where the prosecutrix was found to have attained the age of discretion and was just below 17 years of age. The prosecutrix gave the statement that she was neither kidnapped nor abducted who went in the company of the accused, willingly and knowingly. She has been living with petitioner No. 2 as his wife and was an expecting mother carrying a pregnancy of 31 weeks. This Court quashed the Charge sheet observing that substantial justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicality. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
"18. Petitioner No. 1 the victim/prosecutrix would be the best witness, rather the only witness of commission of offence under Sections 363/366 of the IPC. Surely, the victim will not support the prosecution case, as has been made evident by her in her statement, recorded in the course of investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and therefore the trial would result in acquittal. During course of trial, considerable number of man hours would be wasted in prosecution/ defending and judging the case. No useful purpose would be served and the entire exercise of trial would be in futility because the victim has declared that she was not victimised or kidnapped.
19. The facts that have emerged from the record make it evident that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated because mother of the Prosecutrix/victim (respondent No. -4) has not accepted the marriage of her daughter with petitioner No. 2.
20. In case, despite the evidence that has come on record, as noted above, proceedings are not quashed, petitioner No. -2 would be required to face criminal charges and undergo the agony of a trial.
21. We have also taken into account the fact that in case the petitioner No. 2 is allowed to be prosecuted, the matrimonial life of petitioner No. 1/the alleged victim would be disrupted. Her husband would be incarcerated and there would be no one to take care of her child, who is yet-to-be-born.
22. If a minor, of her own, abandons the guardianship of her parents and joins a boy without any role having been played by the boy in her abandoning the guardianship of her parents and without her having been subjected to any kind of pressure, inducement, etc and without any offer or promise from the accused, no offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. will be made out when the girl is aged more than 17 years and is mature enough to understand what she is doing.Of course, if the accused induces or allures the girl and that influences the minor in leaving her guardian's custody and the keeping and going with the accused, then it would be difficult for the Court to accept that minor had voluntarily come to the accused. In case the victim/prosecutrix willingly, of her own accord, accompanies the boy, the law does not cast a duty on the boy of taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him.
27. The writ Court considering totality of fact and circumstances, cannot ignore or disregard the welfare of the petitioners, particularly when the exercise of trial is going to be in futility, as observed hereinabove.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, the Court is convinced that the impugned proceedings have been initiated in abuse of process of the Court and process of the law. A personal grudge against marriage of choice of the daughter is being settled by virtue of initiating impugned criminal proceedings, which would not be permissible in law. Such prosecution would abrogate constitutional right vested in the petitioners to get married as per their discretion, particularly when there is no evidence to indicate that the marriage is void.
29. The stand of the Prosecuting Agency that the victim was a few months below age of majority when she joined the company of the accused/petitioner No. 2, and therefore offence has been committed, cannot be accepted if ground reality is taken into account. It has come on record that the prosecutrix is an expecting mother and is carrying a pregnancy of 31 weeks. Coupled with this fact is the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has said that she was neither kidnapped nor abducted, rather has been living with petitioner No. 2 as his wife. It is the prosecutrix who went in the company of the accused, willingly, knowingly, and rather than the accused taking the prosecutrix out of the custody of the lawful guardian; the victim herself had eloped with petitioner No. 2. In the considered opinion of the Court, substantial justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicality, as is being concluded by the Investigating Agency.
30. In view of above, petitioner No. 2 cannot be said to have committed offence either under Section 363 I.P.C. read with Section 361 I.P.C. or under Section 366 I.P.C."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The Honble Apex Court in the case of S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR1965 SC 942, has interpreted the meaning of Section 361 of the IPC and has held that if the victim had voluntarily joined the accused then in such case it could not be said that the accused had taken her away from the protection of lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 361 of the Code. The judgment of S.Varadarajan (supra) is reproduced in its entirety.
"11. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstance can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.
12. It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our, opinion if evidence to establish one of those things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt, the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfillment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tantamount to "taking".
Whatever may be the position with respect to an offence under that ,section and even assuming that a minor cannot in law abandon the guardianship of her lawful guardian, for the reason which we have already stated, the accused person in whose company she is later found cannot be held guilty of having taken her out of the keeping of her guardian unless something more is established.
After pointing out that there is an essential distinction between the words "taking" and "enticing" it was no doubt observed that the mental attitude of the minor is not of relevance in the case of taking and that the word "take" means to cause to go, to escort or to get into possession. But these observations have to be understood in the context of the facts found in that case. For, it had been found that the minor girl whom the accused was charged with having kidnapped had been persuaded by the accused when she had gone out of her house for answering the call of nature, to go along with him and was taken by him to another village and kept in his uncle's house until she was restored back to her father by the uncle later. Thus, here there was an element of persuasion by the accused person which brought about the willingness of the girl and this makes all the difference. In our opinion, therefore, neither of these decisions is of assistance to the State.
We are satisfied, upon the material on record, that no offence under section 363 has been established against the appellant and that he is, therefore, entitled to acquittal. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon him."
20. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on 10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant/accused and the complainant/victim had married each other.
21. Similarly, in the case of Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein, under identical circumstances and almost identical provisions the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings instituted against the accused therein. The relevant paragraph 8 to 10 of the Dasari Srikant (supra) read as under:-
"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.
9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court. 10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."
22. The facts of the present case are very similar to the above judgments. Here also I find that the victim has not at all supported the prosecution version instead according to her she voluntarily went with the applicant no.1-accused on the date of alleged offence. Thereafter, she married him. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that no offence under Sections 363 and 366A and 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been made out. The police has submitted chargesheet in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and unfortunately the trial court has also not considered the matter in correct perspective. Secondly, the question arises here as to whether the proceedings of criminal case under section 363 and 366A and 376 of the IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act can be quashed by the High Court in the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 BNSS, if the parties have settled their dispute amicably and living as husband and wife for a long period.
23. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs, The State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC onLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Others vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433, also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and secondly, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. Since the judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety:
"Leave granted.
The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j)(ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.
Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children.
The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.
After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.
For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order."
24. In another judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of offence, punishable under Sections 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act on the ground of marriage between the accused and the victim. It was brought on record that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children were born, whose documents were produced alongwith the appeal. The Apex Court in this case quashed the proceedings on the ground that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as it would cause undue harassment to the appellant/accused and the victim and their children.
25. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025, quashed the proceedings of Case Crime No.302 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023, under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC as well as quashed the proceedings of Case Crime No.304 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:-
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process."
26. In my considered opinion, no offence is made out under sections 363 and 366A and Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act since the victim has not levelled any allegation against the applicant no.1 in relation to the aforementioned sections. The victim at no point of time stated that she was enticed away/kidnapped or sexually assaulted or subjected to rape by the applicant no.1. Therefore, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are missing. Contrary to this, the victim has solemnized marriage with the applicant no.1 and they are living a happy married life for the last several years and the opposite party no.4/first informant has also entered into settlement agreement. If the proceedings of the trial court is not quashed by this Court, the applicant no.1 and the victim may sustain legal injury and the case of the applicants is squarely covered with the cases mentioned hereinabove.
27. Furthermore, the applicant no.1/accused, victim and the first informant have entered into compromise on 05.03.2024, which is appended at page 90 of the present application and the same has been verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.05.2024, a certified copy of which has been appended alongwith the supplementary affidavit. The undisputed fact is that the applicant no.1-accused and the victim have solemnized their marriage and the same has been accepted by the family members of the victim; the married couple are living together in a happy married life and at this stage their marriage cannot be disturbed.
28. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.
29. The entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.176 of 2023 (State Vs. Shyam Mohan Nishad) arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2022, u/s 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chitrakoot as well as chargesheet dated 16.03.2023, cognizance order dated 23.03.2023 and the impugned order dated 04.04.2023 against the applicants, are hereby quashed.
30. No order as to costs.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) April 1, 2026 Nitendra