Compelling Wife To Undergo Trial For Inevitable Acquittal Is 'Instrument Of Harassment': Allahabad High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Husband

A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra thus allowed the plea of one Ashwani Anand observing that it cannot remain a "silent spectator" or "mere bystander" when the ends of justice demand immediate intervention.

Case in brief

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged by the father of the girl (Opposite Party No. 4), alleging that his daughter had been abducted by the petitioner in April 2024.

While the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC and S. 11/12 POCSO Act, the victim herself denied the prosecution's story.

In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, she categorically denied the allegations as she stated she left home willingly and denied any physical relationship with the accused at that time.

Crucially, as the Court also noted, both the victim and the accused solemnized their marriage in June this year, after the victim had indisputably attained the age of majority and they also registered it under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. The victim even filed an affidavit in the High Court supporting her husband's plea to quash the case.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposed the plea, arguing that POCSO offenses are crimes against society and cannot be quashed based on compromise.

HC observations

Against the backdrop of these facts, Justice Shailendra referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the issue at hand including the October 2025 judgment in the case of K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 1048.

The Court added that non-exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) would defeat the very purpose of law and would render a written statutory provision for inherent powers a mere waste paper work of the legislature.

"We would fail in our duty if we do not use the powers conferred upon us by the Legislature, another equally strong pillar of the Constitution, by self imposed restrictions upon us forgetting about the purpose for which we have been blessed to occupy the pious position as a Judge at any level", the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court gave a profound observation on the role of the judiciary, stating: "What should a Judge's response be when the person who comes knocking at the doors of his court is a woman... having no resources to fight? The judiciary cannot remain a mere bystander or silent spectator but it must become an active participant in the judicial process."

The Single Judge further emphasized that the "pious duty" of a Judge is to "wipe every tear from every eye" and that the purpose of law is not to create problems for society but to find solutions.

In its 11-page order, the Court also pointed to the futility of trial in the present case as it observed that there was no logic in dragging the prosecution and defence for "months and years" only to record the statement of a hostile witness, which would inevitably lead to acquittal by the Trial Court.

Justice Shailendra termed this process an "irony of fate" as he added that such a rigid adherence to procedure will waste the precious time and resources of the judicial system.

"Compelling a lady in such matters to visit court premises for months and years for the purposes of getting her own husband acquitted where he is facing threat of punishment for doing some wrong with his wife which she does not admit, would be an instrument of harassment," the Court observed.

"Apart from making recurring expenditures and sometimes something over and above what is lawfully required, facing all evil eyes, criticism and all sorts of comments which may be against dignity of a woman, can also not be ignored", the Court further added.

Justice Shailendra was also of the view that if a District Court can acquit an accused of a non-compoundable offence based on the statement of a hostile victim, the High Court is not powerless to "bury the lis" (dispute) at an early stage by relying on similar statements made on oath.

Furthermore, drawing parallels with the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice," the High Court asserted that its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) must be exercised to "secure the ends of justice."

Conclusively, noting that the parties have validly married and the victim is in support of her husband, the Court quashed the charge sheet and the entire proceedings of the criminal case.

Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Anjani Kumar Shukla and Prakash Chand Srivastava