Allowed

Pradeshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Oct 2025C528/1710/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1710 of 2025 to quash criminal proceedings against the applicant. Finding that the applicant and victim are currently husband and wife, the Court exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the trial despite the offences being non-compoundable, citing that continued proceedings would deny real and substantial justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2024, State vs. Pardeshi, were quashed.

Pradeshi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:8803

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 07^th OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1710 OF 2025

¶5

Pradeshi Ve	..... Applicant rsus
State of Uttarakhand and An	other ..…Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant :	Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent: No.1	Mr. Akshay Latwal, Assistant Government Advocate with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent No.2/victim	: Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate (through video conferencing).

¶6

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶7

This Application has been filed under Section

¶8

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2024, “State vs. Pardeshi”, pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar under Sections 363, 366, Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5 ( l ) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, “Act, 2012”).

¶9

¶10

2025:UHC:8803

¶11

2 . Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the

¶12

applicant-accused.

¶13

3 . Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent no.1.

¶14

4 . Mr. Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-victim.

¶15

5 . Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate submitted that according to the alleged victim (PW1), the respondent no.2, her date of birth is 11.05.2007 (Leaving Certificate– Annexure No.3). She has stated in her examination that the applicant did not forcefully take her to Baghpat. He had not established any physical relationship with her. She has married the applicant after attaining majority. She got married to the applicant on 08.06.2025, and, now they are living happily as wife and husband.

¶16

6 . The applicant – accused and the respondent no.2-victim are present together through video conferencing. The applicant is identified by Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate. The respondent no.2-victim is identified by Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate.

¶17

7 . Both, the applicant and the respondent no.2 submitted that they have married and they are living happily as husband and wife. The respondent no.2 has

¶18

¶19

2025:UHC:8803

¶20

requested to quash the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2024.

¶21

8 . Mr. Akshay Latwal, Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the said request of the respondent no.2 on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable.

¶22

9. Though this Court would normally be hesitant to quash the proceedings under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2012, but, it is noticed that the applicant and the victim are living happily as husband and wife. In these circumstances, in case, the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties. Therefore, it is a case, in which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to do real and substantial justice.

¶23

10. Considering the totality of the matter, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2024, “State vs. Pardeshi”, pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are quashed. 11. Resultantly, the present Application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶24

¶25

2025:UHC:8803

¶26

Sanhita, 2023, is allowed and the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2024, “State vs. Pardeshi”, pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

¶27

___________________ Date: 07.10.2025 ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. JKJ/Pant

¶28

Pradeshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patram Vs Gram Sabha Sethpur, Pargana-Manglour

Ram Singh Vs Gram Sabha Sethpur

Shivani Rawat and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chetan Singh Bisht Vs Smt. Deepika Bisht

Ayyaj Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Parth Dhyani Vs State of Uttarakhand