Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 528 Of B.N.S.S. 2023) vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 23 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.919 of 2025
(Under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023)
Bhagat Singh Kandwal ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder, for the State/1.
Mr. Sagar Malara, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 919 of 2025 has
been filed by the Applicant, Bhagat Singh Kandwal, under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of
the entire criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 29 of
2023, titled State v. Bhagat Singh Kandwal, pending before the Court
of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar.
2. The proceedings arise out of FIR No. 23 of 2023, registered at Police
Station Karanprayag, District Chamoli, on 22.05.2023, at the instance
of the Applicant's wife, Respondent No. 2,alleging repeated sexual
assault and physical violence committed by the Applicant against their
two minor daughters. The offences alleged include Sections 354-A,
323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 8 and 10 of
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and Section
75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet No. 34/2023 was
filed 13.07.2023 against the Applicant, and the learned trial court took
cognizance on 17.07.2023. Thereafter, charges were framed on
03.08.2023. During the course of the trial, the two victim daughters
were examined as PW-1 and PW-2, and the complainant-wife as PW-3.
4. The victims in their deposition under oath alleged that the Applicant,
their father, repeatedly engaged in acts of sexual misconduct, including
inappropriate touching, placing his hands inside their clothes, and
threatening them with violence if they disclosed the abuse. These
allegations were stated to have continued for years since the
Applicant's retirement from the Indian Army in 2016.
5. In the present petition, the Applicant seeks quashing of the trial
proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled
outside the Court, and that the complainant and the victim daughters no
longer wish to pursue the case.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the criminal
proceedings are the outcome of a domestic dispute between the
Applicant and his wife, Respondent No. 2.
7. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged during a period of heightened
discord, and the allegations were exaggerated and motivated by
personal animosity.
8. It was contended that the Applicant is a retired army personnel and a
law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents. It was urged that the
strained marital relationship led Respondent No. 2 to lodge a complaint
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
using sensitive penal provisions as a pressure tactic to settle personal
scores.
9. The learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the
parties, including the complainant and the minor daughters, have
resolved their differences amicably with the help of mutual relatives
and well-wishers. The family is now living together peacefully, and
Respondent No. 2 and the victims have affirmed by way of affidavit
that they do not wish to continue the criminal prosecution.
10. It was submitted that the matter arising out of serious allegations
has now lost its adversarial character owing to reconciliation, and
continuing the trial would only serve to disrupt the familial harmony
now restored.
11. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Dimpey
Gujral v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2013) 11 SCC 497; and Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to urge that even in non-
compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise its inherent
powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) to
quash proceedings if the underlying dispute is predominantly private in
nature and stands resolved.
12. It was further argued that, as per the test laid down in Gian Singh
(supra), when the possibility of conviction is remote and the
prosecution is likely to cause unnecessary hardship to the accused
without serving the ends of justice, the Court ought to intervene and
quash the proceedings.
13. The learned counsel also emphasised that the prosecutrix and her
daughters have entered into a compromise voluntarily and without
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
coercion, and that permitting the trial to continue would be oppressive
and futile.
14. Learned State Counsel, assisted by counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2, opposed the prayer for quashing. It was submitted
that the offences alleged involve grave and repeated acts of sexual
abuse committed by a father upon his own minor daughters, and are not
merely matrimonial in nature.
15. It was urged that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, is a special statute enacted to protect children from sexual
exploitation and abuse, and that offences under Sections 8 and 10 of the
Act are non-compoundable, serious, and cognizable in nature.
16. The learned State Counsel submitted that the evidence already
recorded in the trial, including the depositions of the two minor victims
and their mother, clearly discloses a prima facie case against the
Applicant. Their testimonies are consistent, detailed, and given under
oath, without any apparent signs of fabrication.
17. It was also argued that permitting quashing of such proceedings
on the ground of compromise would set a dangerous precedent,
especially in cases involving vulnerable child victims who may be
under familial or social pressure to withdraw.
18. The respondents contended that the very object of the POCSO
Act would be defeated if proceedings under it are quashed on the
ground of private settlement, especially when trial has already
progressed and the victims have been examined.The inherent powers of
the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, analogous to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, are of wide amplitude and intended to secure the ends of
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of law. However, such
jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint, particularly in matters
involving allegations of serious bodily or sexual offences against
minors.
19. The Applicant seeks quashing of proceedings arising from FIR
No. 23 of 2023, which alleges offences punishable under Sections 354-
A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The
gravamen of the allegations is that the Applicant, who is the father of
the minor victims, repeatedly engaged in acts of sexual misconduct and
physical abuse against them.
20. The trial court has already recorded the statements of both minor
daughters (PW-1 and PW-2) and their mother (PW-3). Their
depositions, as recorded on 08.08.2023 and 19.10.2023, respectively,
narrate detailed and consistent accounts of sexual abuse. The victims
specifically alleged that the Applicant would put his hands inside their
clothes, touch their private parts, and threaten them with violence to
secure silence. The allegations' nature, consistency, and the fact that the
victims stood by their statements during cross-examination lend prima
facie credence to the State's case.
21. The contention that the dispute is matrimonial in nature and the
proceedings should be quashed owing to a post facto settlement cannot
be accepted in the present case.
22. In Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
criminal proceedings arising out of "heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity" cannot be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise, as such offences are not
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
private in nature but have grave societal consequences. Allegations of
sexual offences against children, particularly when made against a
parent, fall within the category of such offences.
23. The present case does not involve a commercial or civil dispute
with a criminal flavour, nor does it arise solely out of a matrimonial
discord capable of private settlement. It implicates the dignity and
bodily autonomy of two minor daughters, protected under the POCSO
Acta special and stringent legislation aimed at safeguarding children
from sexual abuse.
24. Even assuming, arguendo, that a compromise has been entered
into, the judicial conscience of this Court cannot permit the
extinguishment of criminal liability in matters affecting child victims,
who remain structurally vulnerable to familial and societal pressure.
Any indulgence in such cases would not only undermine the statutory
mandate of the POCSO Act but would also embolden a culture of
compromise in heinous offences, thereby eroding public confidence in
the justice system.
25. The allegations, as they stand, portray a deeply distressing and
disturbing narrative wherein the accused, who was entrusted with the
fundamental responsibility of safeguarding, caring for, and nurturing
his two minor daughters, is alleged to have gravely violated that
position of absolute trust by subjecting both of them to repeated acts of
sexual abuse. Such an alleged breach does not merely compromise their
bodily integrity but also strikes at the very core of their dignity,
autonomy, and psychological well-being. The trauma alleged is not
confined to the physical dimension alone but extends to deep emotional
and mental harm, particularly aggravated by the fact that the perpetrator
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
is alleged to be their own father the very person who was expected to
be their protector.
26. This Court is also mindful of an emerging and concerning trend
where, in certain cases involving offences against minor children,
attempts are made to privately settle or compound the matter, often
under familial, societal, or economic pressures. While such
arrangements may technically bring an end to the criminal process, the
Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the consequences of such
offences are not erased by mere settlement between parties. The
psychological scars, trauma, and emotional injuries inflicted upon the
child victim are neither negotiable nor extinguishable through private
compromise.
27. The statements of both minor victims indicate that the applicant
subjected them to sexual harassment and physically assaulted them
whenever they attempted to report his misconduct to their mother. The
victims have clearly expressed that they do not wish for their father to
be released from custody; it is only the mother who has conveyed a
desire for his release. Furthermore, as per the mother's statement, the
applicant frequently returned home intoxicated and subjected both her
and the daughters to physical abuse
28. The law, particularly statutes like the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, has been enacted recognising that
offences against children are not merely personal wrongs but crimes
against the society at large. Permitting such proceedings to be quashed
solely on the basis of settlement runs the grave risk of undermining the
legislative intent and could result in further victimisation of the child,
leaving them to carry the invisible wounds of trauma throughout their
life.
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
29. It is in this context that the Court is required to exercise
heightened caution and adopt a victim-centric approach while dealing
with offences of this nature, ensuring that the criminal justice process
does not become complicit in perpetuating harm under the guise of
settlement.
30. To permit the extinguishment of proceedings in such matters
would be to institutionalise impunity, validate silence over suffering,
and render the protective mechanisms of child rights law illusory.
Children, by their very nature, are unable to comprehend the full import
of compromise or its long-term implications. A closure of the criminal
process on the altar of family compromise does not heal; it only
conceals trauma, deepens scars, and perpetuates cycles of victimisation.
31. In cases of this nature, it is the duty of the State to pursue the
prosecution to its logical conclusion. The objective of the criminal
justice process is neither to persecute the accused nor to absolve him
merely because his relationship with the complainant has subsequently
improved. The paramount purpose is to ensure that the truth is
established before the court of competent jurisdiction, based on the
evidence adduced during the course of the trial.
32. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the present
case is not fit for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023. The continuation of the trial cannot be said to amount
to abuse of process, nor would it cause manifest injustice so as to
justify quashing.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 919 of 2025, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in Special
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5386
Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2023, State v. Bhagat Singh Kandwal,
punishable under section 354A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, under section 8,
10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, P.S. Karanprayag, District –
Chamoli pending before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli at
Gopeshwar, is hereby dismissed.
The learned trial court shall proceed with the matter in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this
order.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:23.06.2025
NR/
9
Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2025, Bhagat Singh Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.