Uttarakhand High Court
Arbaj & Another ……Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand& Others on 17 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1147 of 2025
Arbaj & Another ......Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand& Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Ms. Shazia Parvesh, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 &3.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by
the applicantsArbaj and Kaleemunder Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
dated 22.01.2024, the cognizance order dated 21.02.2024, and all
subsequent proceedings arising in Special Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2024
titled State v. Kaleem & Another, which is presently pending before the
learned Fast Track Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee,
District Haridwar.
2. The charges against Applicants no. 2, Kaleem, are under Sections
376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(a) and 4 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter
"POCSO Act"), and against Applicant no. 1, Arbaj, under Section 354A of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The present application is premised on a compromise said to have
been entered between the Applicants and the father of the minor victim,
supported by a deed dated 08.07.2025, where it is stated that the dispute
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6380
has been amicably resolved. The Applicants now pray for the quashing of
proceedings on the strength of this private settlement.
4. The FIR in the instant matter was lodged on 25.12.2023 by the
father of the minor victim, aged about 15 years, alleging that the accused
persons forcibly took his daughter to a house, threatened her with harm,
and committed sexual assault. The FIR further states that the victim was
intimidated that a video of the incident would be made public on social
media. Following the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on
22.01.2024, and the learned trial court took cognizance on 21.02.2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The Applicants have relied on certain statements made by the
victim during the course of the investigation, wherein she is stated to have
denied the commission of any sexual act and described the incident as
arising from a misunderstanding or familial dispute. It is also submitted
that the victim and ApplicantNo. 2 were known to each other, and there
existed a personal relationship. They contend that the subsequent
statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and in court proceedings
were the result of external influence, and that the medical report does not
support allegations of sexual assault. On these grounds, they request that
the court terminate the trial proceedings, as continuation would cause
unnecessary hardship.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicants contends that the entire
criminal case stems from a misunderstanding and emotional reaction from
the victim's family, and not from any actual commission of the alleged
offences.
8. It is further submitted that the victim and ApplicantNo. 2,
Kaleem, had known each other for over a year and were in a romantic
relationship, regularly communicating over calls. The FIR was lodged at
the instance of the victim's father and not based on the voluntary
complaint of the victim.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6380
9. Learned counsel draws the court's attention that in her Section
161 CrPC statement, the victim herself denied any incident of sexual
assault, denied being threatened, and also denied the existence of any
alleged video. It is submitted that her Section 164 CrPC statement shows
an altered narrative, allegedly recorded under the influence of family
members and legal pressure.
10. Learned Counsel argues that the medical examination of the
victim notes that her hymen was found intact and no external or internal
injuries were present, thereby medically contradicting the allegations of
rape. It was further submitted that five witnesses have already been
examined during the trial, including the victim, and she has, in her later
depositions, not supported the prosecution's version.
11. The learned Counsel also highlights that the matter has now been
amicably settled in the interest of the future of the girl and the families
involved.
12. Per contra, Ms. Shazia Parvesh, learned counsel for the
Respondent and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State
submits that the offences alleged are of a grave and heinous nature,
involving rape and sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act,
and are not compoundable.
13. Learned counsel lay emphasis on the argument that Section
376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable by
law, and the statute provides no scope for compromise in cases involving
sexual offences against children.
14. Further submission was made that the victim is a minor, and thus
her consent if any is legally irrelevant. The presumption of statutory
protection under POCSO overrides any arguments based on consent or
relationship.
15. Counsel submits that the Court cannot permit a private
arrangement such as a promise of marriage to substitute legal
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6380
consequences for serious criminal charges. Allowing such a compromise
would amount to endorsing unlawful settlements and could discourage
reporting of such offences in the future.
16. Having carefully perused the record, this Court finds that the
victim, being a minor at the time of the alleged incident, was below the
legally defined age of consent. Thus, even if there existed any personal or
emotional relationship between her and either of the accused, it is rendered
legally inconsequential under the provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC.
17. This Court further notes that the offences for which the
Applicants stand charged are of a serious and grave nature. The allegations
involve not only the offence of rape of a child but also molestation and
intimidation. These are not offences which are viewed by the law as
private wrongs between two individuals. Instead, they are offences of
public character crimes that affect the fabric of society and threaten the
safety of its most vulnerable members.
18. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was
enacted with the specific intent to protect children from sexual abuse and
exploitation. It creates a legal framework that is stringent, and for good
reason. In such cases, the victim's minority is not just a matter of age it is a
matter of heightened vulnerability, reduced autonomy, and increased
societal responsibility. Permitting compromise in such situations is not
merely legally impermissible it defeats the very intent of the legislature.
19. Further, the compromise placed on record discloses that the
parties have agreed to amicably resolve the matter, and arrangements have
been made wherein the victim will be married to Applicant no. 2 upon
attaining majority. Such an understanding, while appearing to present a
consensual resolution, cannot be recognized or acted upon by a
constitutional court. No promise of marriage or financial support can
nullify or override the statutory safeguards extended to a minor girl. The
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025-----Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6380
Court cannot allow itself to be used as a vehicle for legitimizing
arrangements that compromise the dignity, safety, or rights of a child.
20. Moreover, the materials annexed with the application, including
the victim's inconsistent statements, medical examination reports, and the
affidavits of parties, though relevant for trial, do not render the prosecution
malicious or frivolous at this stage. The evaluation of evidentiary
contradictions or the medical opinion on injury or lack thereof is matters
squarely within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. This Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, is not required to conduct
a mini-trial or pre-judge the evidentiary value of such documents.
21. The contention that the case is the result of a misunderstanding or
that the victim now seeks to retract is of little consequence when the law
has expressly barred compounding of such offences. The Court must
remain alert to the possibility of coercion, social pressure, or manipulation
when such settlements are proposed in offences involving minor girls. The
need to secure justice for the vulnerable cannot be subordinated to private
settlements or family arrangements.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under
Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is dismissed. The compounding applications are
also hereby not allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the
matter in accordance with law and to conduct the trial expeditiously.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated: 17.07.2025
SB
SHIKSHA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c
24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c,
BINJOLA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54
2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5
DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.07.23 15:55:51 +05’30’
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1147 of 2025—–Arbaj & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link