Amit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2023, pending before the court of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli, arising out of an FIR registered at Police Station Nandanagar (Ghat), District Chamoli, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

¶13

2. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 3, the father of the victim, alleging that his minor daughter had gone missing from her home on 28.04.2023. It was alleged that the Applicant had enticed and taken away the victim.

¶14

1

¶15

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶16

Ashish Naithani J.

¶17

2025:UHC:11481

¶18

3. During the investigation, the victim was recovered, and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. She was also subjected to a medical examination. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the Applicant, whereafter cognizance was taken, and the matter was committed to the Court of Session, culminating in Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2023.

¶19

4. During the course of the trial, the victim was examined as PW-1, wherein she reiterated her version regarding her relationship with the Applicant and the circumstances in which she had left her parental home. The Applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023.

¶20

5. The Applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, contending that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and that no offence is made out even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value.

¶21

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the entire criminal prosecution is malicious, misconceived and driven by social opposition to the relationship between the Applicant and the victim. It was contended that the Applicant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, whereas the victim belongs to a Brahmin family, and that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship came to the knowledge of the victim’s family.

¶22

7. It was argued that the victim had voluntarily left her parental home and had accompanied the Applicant of her own free will. Learned counsel submitted that the victim stated in her

¶23

2

¶24

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶25

Ashish Naithani J.

¶26

2025:UHC:11481

¶27

statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, as well as in her deposition before the trial court, that she was in a consensual relationship with the Applicant and that she had married him of her own volition.

¶28

8. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no allegation of force, coercion or deceit in any of the statements of the victim. According to the Applicant, even the medical examination does not disclose any injuries or signs suggestive of sexual assault, thereby demolishing the prosecution case under Section 376 IPC.

¶29

9. It was contended that the age of the victim, as borne out from the material on record, including her own statements and educational documents, would indicate that she had attained the age of eighteen years at the relevant time. Learned counsel argued that once the victim had attained the age of majority, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out.

¶30

10. Learned counsel further urged that even assuming the marriage to be a child marriage, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act does not render such a marriage void ipso facto and that the statutory scheme treats such marriages as voidable at the instance of the contracting party who was a child at the time of marriage.

¶31

11. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submitted that the continuation of the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would result in a grave miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

3

¶33

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶34

Ashish Naithani J.

¶35

2025:UHC:11481

¶36

12. Learned Deputy A.G. appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the allegations in the FIR, read with the charge sheet material, disclose the commission of cognizable and serious offences involving a minor girl.

¶37

13. Learned State counsel submitted that the issue relating to the age of the victim is a matter of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It was argued that the prosecution has placed material on record in support of its case and that such material requires appreciation by the trial court.

¶38

14. It was contended that offences under the POCSO Act are strict liability offences where consent is immaterial, and that the Applicant cannot seek quashing of proceedings merely on the basis of statements made by the victim, which are required to be tested during trial.

¶39

15. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the defence raised by the Applicant involves disputed questions of fact, including the genuineness of the alleged marriage, the actual age of the victim, and the legal consequences thereof, all of which fall outside the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction.

¶40

16. On these grounds, it was urged that no case for interference is made out and that the application deserves to be dismissed. 17. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

¶41

18. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of a limited nature. The settled

¶42

4

¶43

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶44

Ashish Naithani J.

¶45

2025:UHC:11481

¶46

legal position is that such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the uncontroverted allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶47

19. In the present case, the Applicant seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

¶48

20. The material on record indicates that the victim, in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code as well as in her deposition before the trial court as PW-1, has stated that she left her parental home voluntarily, accompanied the Applicant of her own free will, and entered into a marital relationship with him. She has not alleged use of force, coercion, threat or deceit by the Applicant.

¶49

21. The medical examination of the victim does not record any injury suggestive of physical violence. However, it is equally well settled that the absence of injuries, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of the absence of an offence, particularly at the stage of exercise of inherent jurisdiction, where this Court is not expected to weigh evidence or assess its probative value.

¶50

22. So far as the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are concerned, the age of the victim is a foundational and determinative fact. The applicability of these enactments hinges entirely upon whether the victim was a minor at the relevant time.

¶51

5

¶52

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶53

Ashish Naithani J.

¶54

2025:UHC:11481

¶55

23. At this stage, the material placed before this Court does not disclose such clear, reliable and unimpeachable proof of age as would enable this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, to conclusively hold that the victim had attained the age of majority at the time of the incident. The question of age, therefore, remains one of evidence requiring adjudication by the trial court upon appreciation of the material led by the parties.

¶56

24. In that view, the continuation of proceedings, insofar as they hinge upon the determination of age and the applicability of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, cannot be interdicted under Section 482 of the Code merely on the basis of the victim’s statements or the asserted consensual nature of the relationship.

¶57

25. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant raise disputed questions of fact relating to the age of the victim, the nature of the relationship, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Such issues cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code and are matters to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence led during trial. 26. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not to conduct a mini-trial or return findings on facts while exercising inherent jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the statutory framework governing offences under the POCSO Act, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out.

¶58

6

¶59

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11481

ORDER

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed .

¶64

It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be considered independently by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶65

(Ashish Naithani J.)

¶66

25.11.2025

¶67

SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.12.23 17:40:01 +05'30'

¶68

7

¶69

Criminal Misc. Application No. 847 of 2024, “Amit Kumar vs. State and Others”

¶70

Ashish Naithani J.

Amit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Faiz Vs State of Uttarakhand

Saleem Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rahul Sharma Vs Diwakar

Sumit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Prakash Painyuli Vs State of Uttarakhand