The Allahabad High Court has held that where parties to a POCSO case have married and voluntarily executed a verified compromise deed, further criminal proceedings constitute unnecessary harassment and violate the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s recognition of settlement in cases where public interest is not compromised and the victim-consent is unequivocal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Abhimanyu, was named as the accused in Case Crime No. 0242 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The allegations pertained to sexual assault and criminal intimidation against a minor female. The case was converted into Criminal Case No. 219 of 2025, and a chargesheet (A09/25) was filed on 13.01.2025.
Key Facts
- The alleged victim was a minor at the time of the incident, which occurred in late 2023 or early 2024.
- The parties, despite the initial allegations, developed a relationship and entered into a voluntary marriage on 20.03.2026.
- A written compromise deed dated 20.03.2026 was executed by both parties, affirming mutual consent, withdrawal of all allegations, and desire to end the legal proceedings.
- The compromise deed was filed before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in compliance with an order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1547 of 2026.
- On 02.05.2026, the trial court verified the compromise deed in the presence of both parties, their legal representatives, and the public prosecutor.
- No objection was raised by the State or the Public Prosecutor during verification.
Procedural History
- 2024 (early): Alleged incident leading to Crime No. 0242 of 2024.
- 13.01.2025: Chargesheet (A09/25) filed under BNS and POCSO Act.
- 2025: Criminal Case No. 219 of 2025 commenced before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar.
- 23.04.2026: Allahabad High Court directed verification of compromise under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- 20.03.2026: Compromise deed executed by parties.
- 02.05.2026: Trial court verified compromise deed in open court.
- 27.05.2026: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 2246 of 2026 filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contended that the criminal case arose from a misunderstanding and that the parties had since resolved all differences through marriage and a formal compromise. He argued that continuing prosecution would be unjust, oppressive, and contrary to the spirit of settlement recognized by the Supreme Court.
The opposite party no. 3 (the alleged victim’s family) supported the applicant’s submission, affirming that no grievance remained and that the compromise was genuine and voluntary.
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, did not oppose the quashing, acknowledging the finality of the compromise and the absence of public interest concerns.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of:
- Criminal Case No. 219 of 2025
- Chargesheet A09/25 dated 13.01.2025
- All proceedings under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012
The Compromise Deed
The compromise deed dated 20.03.2026 was signed by both parties, witnessed by two individuals, and notarized. It explicitly stated:
- The alleged victim had attained majority and voluntarily consented to marriage.
- All allegations were withdrawn.
- Both parties agreed to live together as husband and wife.
- No future claims or legal actions would be initiated.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act and BNS, even for serious offences, can be quashed upon a voluntary, verified compromise between the accused and the victim, particularly after their marriage and withdrawal of all grievances.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel relied on Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2026 SCC OnLine SC 637), which held that where a minor victim has attained majority and voluntarily enters into marriage with the accused, the court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings if no public interest is harmed. He further cited B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 to establish that courts may quash proceedings in cases of compromise, especially where the offence is not heinous and the victim consents.
He emphasized that the compromise was not coerced, was verified by the trial court, and that the victim, now an adult, had chosen to marry the accused - demonstrating true reconciliation.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, did not oppose the application. The counsel for opposite party no. 3 explicitly supported the applicant’s submission, affirming the genuineness of the compromise and the absence of any continuing dispute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offences under the POCSO Act and BNS, noting that while some provisions are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
"Where the parties have settled their differences and the victim, having attained majority, has voluntarily chosen to marry the accused, the continuation of criminal proceedings serves no purpose other than to inflict further trauma."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving heinous sexual offences against minors where the victim remains a child and lacks capacity to consent. Here, the victim had turned 18, the marriage was consensual, and the compromise was verified by the trial court with no objection from the State.
The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab had laid down a framework: quashing is permissible where the compromise is genuine, the offence is not of a nature that shocks the collective conscience, and the victim’s consent is free and voluntary.
The Court also noted that the compromise deed was not a mere formality but a substantive resolution, corroborated by the trial court’s verification order dated 02.05.2026. The State’s non-opposition further reinforced the legitimacy of the settlement.
The Court held that the continued prosecution of the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law and would violate the principles of natural justice and personal liberty.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Allahabad High Court quashed Criminal Case No. 219 of 2025, the chargesheet A09/25 dated 13.01.2025, and all proceedings under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The compromise deed dated 20.03.2026 was made part of the order. The Court directed that all records relating to the case be sealed and no further action be taken against the applicant. The order was effective immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise After Marriage Can Quash POCSO Proceedings
- Practitioners may now argue that where the victim has attained majority and voluntarily marries the accused, courts may invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, even under POCSO.
- The verification of compromise by the trial court is critical - unverified settlements may not suffice.
- The State’s non-opposition strengthens the case for quashing, but is not mandatory if the court finds the compromise genuine.
Public Interest Must Be Assessed, Not Ignored
- This judgment does not imply that all POCSO cases are compoundable. It applies only where:
- The victim is no longer a minor
- The marriage is consensual and not coerced
- The compromise is documented and verified
- The offence does not involve extreme brutality or systemic exploitation
- Prosecutors must now evaluate whether continuing proceedings serves justice or merely inflicts punishment without purpose.
Judicial Verification Is a Key Safeguard
- Courts will now scrutinize whether compromise was truly voluntary and not influenced by pressure.
- The trial court’s verification order dated 02.05.2026 was pivotal in this case - practitioners must ensure such verification is obtained before filing quashing applications.
- This creates a new procedural pathway: file compromise, seek trial court verification, then approach High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
