Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand vs Unknown on 13 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7144
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL.
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
directions and
.
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 81 of 2025
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Harsh Taneja, learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 2.
4. The present Criminal Misc. Application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed with the prayer to
quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 15.10.2024,
the summoning/cognizance order dated 14.11.2024,
issued by the learned FTC/Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), District Udham Singh
Nagar under Section 75(1)(iii), 351 (2) of BNS, 2023
and 11/12 of POCSO Act, and the entire proceedings
of Special Sessions Trial No. 836 of 2024, "State of
Uttarakhand vs. Dr. Jitendra Mohan Agarwal," arising
out of FIR No. 191 of 2024, under the jurisdiction of
Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
pending in the Court of learned FTC/Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. The case was listed after lunch, especially for
the disposal of the Compounding Application,
whereby the Applicant- Jitendra Mohan Agarwal, has
moved an application that the matter may be
compounded.
6. The Applicant- Jitendra Mohan Agarwal, has
been a teacher in the school where the victim was a
2025:UHC:7144
student. As per the statements of the victim, there
does not appear to be any act of sexual assault or
advancement that would squarely fall within the
definition of a sexual offence under the POCSO Act.
However, the victim has stated that the Applicant
made her uncomfortable by his conduct of sitting
next to her and disturbing her calm during her lunch
break. This conduct led to the registration of the
present case, in particular for sexual harassment
under the POCSO Act.
7. In the present case, the allegations have been
examined in the light of the statutory framework.
Section 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 defines the offence of "sexual
harassment" of a child to include various acts,
whether verbal, visual, gestural, written, or digital,
when committed with sexual intent, irrespective of
physical contact. Section 12 of the Act prescribes the
punishment for such an offence, encompassing
conduct such as stalking or repeatedly following,
watching, or contacting a child. The sine qua non for
attracting Section 11 is the presence of sexual intent
behind the act. Section 75(1)(iii) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, criminalizes showing
pornography against the will of a woman, while
Section 351 of the said Code defines the offence of
criminal intimidation.
8. In the instant matter, a careful reading of the
statement of the victim girl-child does not disclose
any fact that, even if taken at face value, would
establish that the alleged conduct was actuated by
sexual intent. The narration indicates discomfort felt
by the victim, but absent any material suggestive of
2025:UHC:7144
sexual intent, the essential ingredient of Section 11
of the POCSO Act is not made out, thereby rendering
Section 12 inapplicable in the circumstances. These
factors can be considered by the Court while deciding
an application under Section 528 of the BNSS.
However, in the present matter, the prime
consideration is the compounding of the matter, as
the victim girl-child wants to move forward and let go
of the past, which may haunt her peace of mind and
hinder her growth.
9. As a general matter of course, while considering
applications for compounding in such cases, the Court
is guided by the settled position of law that offences
of this nature are, firstly, non-compoundable in
character, and secondly, are regarded as offences
against society at large. The Court must, therefore,
be cautious to ensure that permitting compounding
does not adversely affect the victim, convey an
erroneous message to society, or embolden potential
offenders.
10. As per the mandate of the POCSO Act, the
statement of a child victim is not to be recorded in
open court, but in a specially designed environment,
without the presence of the accused, to prevent the
incident from being retriggered or the victim from
being intimidated. The law also contemplates that the
child should be accompanied by his or her "best
friend," a term denoting the person the victim trusts
the most. In the present matter, that role is fulfilled
by the parents of the victim child. Bearing in mind
the paramount consideration of the best interests of
the child victim, and with the objective of personally
interacting with her in what may be described as a
2025:UHC:7144
form of judicial counselling, intended to rule out any
possibility of duress or pressure, the victim girl-child
was invited, along with her parents, into my
Chambers during the lunch break.
11. After interacting with the victim girl-child and
her parents, it emerged that the victim does not wish
to pursue the matter further. On the date of the
incident (FIR dated 06.08.2024), the victim was 16
years, 5 months, and 21 days old. As of 23.08.2025,
she is 17 years, 5 months, and 25 days old, still
within the ambit of a minor under the Juvenile Justice
Act and the POCSO Act.
12. The victim is presently a Class 12th student
pursuing "Biology", with a promising prospect of
becoming a medical officer. In the opinion of this
Court, if the matter is not compounded, it may
adversely affect her psychology and her future,
potentially hindering her growth and development.
There may also be physiological implications.
However, she has bravely moved on and has stated
her desire to focus on her career and studies and to
let go of the past incident.
13. The victim's parents have unequivocally
affirmed their consent to her wish that the matter be
compounded and brought to a close once and for all.
This Court is of the considered view that, in the
peculiar facts of the present case, such compounding
would serve the ends of justice, with the paramount
consideration being the bright and promising future
of the victim girl-child. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru aptly
stated, "I have always felt that the children of today
will make the India of tomorrow, and the way we
bring them up will determine the future of the
2025:UHC:7144
country."
14. Considering this as a special caseand keeping in
view the paramount consideration of the well-being of
the victim girl-child, her future prospects, and the
probability of psychological turmoil if her mind
remains entangled with the present proceedings,
thereby hindering her mental peace, this Court is
persuaded to take an exceptional view. While it is
well-settled that offences under the POCSO Act are
treated as crimes against society at large and
ordinarily ought not to be compounded, in the overall
assessment of the facts, this Court finds that the
welfare and priorities of the victim must be placed at
the forefront.
15. For the sake of her mental and emotional
health, and in the interest of enabling her to move
forward towards a better tomorrow, this case
warrants a departure from the general rule.
16. Considering the overall facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the view that the ends of justice
would be met by quashing the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No. 836 of 2024, "State of
Uttarakhand vs. Dr. Jitendra Mohan Agarwal," arising
out of FIR No. 191 of 2024, under the jurisdiction of
Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
pending in the Court of learned FTC/Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
ORDER
The Compounding Application is allowed. The
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 836
of 2024, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Dr. Jitendra Mohan
Agarwal,” arising out of FIR No. 191 of 2024, under
2025:UHC:7144
the jurisdiction of Police Station Dineshpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned
FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are
hereby quashed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application C-528
No. 81 of 2025, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Dr. Jitendra
Mohan Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another”, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suruksha Sanhita, 2023, is accordingly
disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
13.08.2025
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21
BINJOLA
822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E6
7B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.08.14 13:52:24 +05’30’
2025:UHC:7144