Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Couple Marries, Calls Trial ‘Catastrophic’

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently exercised its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act, after noting that the parties had settled the dispute and were now married, holding that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose and could prove catastrophic for both sides.

The order was passed by Justice Subodh Abhyankar in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 482, CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Dhamnod Police Station in Dhar district under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The petitioner Vijay alias Gangu approached the Court stating that the FIR had been lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix’s parents, despite the fact that she was a consenting party, and that the two had since solemnised their marriage and resolved their differences amicably.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Mansi Joshi, submitted that the prosecutrix had already been examined before the trial court and was earlier compelled to depose against the accused, but now wished to bring closure to the dispute, which stood settled through compromise.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Romil Verma, left the matter to the discretion of the Court, while counsel for the complainant, Saransh Tiwari, expressed no objection to the quashing in light of the prosecutrix’s stand.

Recording the presence of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix in Court, the Bench noted that the woman had categorically stated that she did not intend to pursue the case any further and had voluntarily entered into a compromise.

The Court observed, “if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the Trial Court, it would be catastrophic for both the parties,” emphasising that permitting the proceedings to continue despite the settlement would be unduly harsh given that the couple was now living together happily.

It further held that continuation of the trial would be “of no avail to both the parties,” particularly in circumstances where the prosecutrix herself was not supporting the prosecution case.

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, reiterating that while courts should ordinarily refrain from quashing proceedings in serious offences, they are not precluded from examining whether continuing such prosecution would achieve any meaningful result.

Quoting from the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that the stage of proceedings and the possibility of the trial ending in acquittal are relevant considerations, especially where the complainant no longer supports the case.

The High Court also took note of the broader objective of securing harmony between parties, observing that the settlement had the potential to improve their mutual relationship and spare them the hardship of prolonged criminal litigation.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings pending before the trial court, bringing an end to the criminal case arising out of Crime No 560 of 2024.

Case Title: Vijay @ Gangu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar