Allowed¶14

Lovekush Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2026C528/2280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; compounding of non-compoundable offences with permission of Court; IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n); POCSO Act Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6; K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Article 142 Constitution of India; S.S.T. No. 69 of 2021; Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021; Additional District Judge/FTSC Haridwar; FIR and charge-sheet quashed; marriage between accused and victim after attaining majority; child born out of wedlock; Alok Mahra, J.; criminal misc. application No. 2280 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed and offences between the parties permitted to be compounded; entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 69 of 2021 (Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021) quashed qua the applicant; FIR and charge-sheet quashed; criminal misc. application disposed of.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C-528 No. 2280 of 2025
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

2.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3.
Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2.
4.
The present criminal misc. application is
filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order as
well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. of 69
of 2021, (Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021), under
Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and
Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO
Act, pending in the court of learned Additional
District Judge/FTSC, Haridwar, on the basis of
compromise between the parties.
5.
Compounding application is also filed in the
matter wherein it is prayed to compound the
offence between the parties under Sections 363,
366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) and
5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act.
6.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the parties have amicably settled their
dispute and have entered into a compromise.
7.
Parties are virtually present before this
Court and are duly identified by their respective
counsels. Parties have also filed their respective
affidavits stating the facts of compromise between
them.
8.
Upon interaction, it is stated by respondent
no. 2 that they have amicably resolved their
dispute and she do not want to pursue with the
criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is
further submitted that applicant and respondent

no.	2 have solemnized their marriage after
attain the w	ing majority and a child is also borne out of edlock.
9. Kirub 2025 6, 7,	Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. akaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in SCC OnLine SC 2307, in its paragraph nos. 8 and 9 has held as hereunder:- “6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order.
	7. With such perspective in mind, we need to proceed to balance the competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
	8. The founding fathers of the Constitution conferred this Court with the extraordinary power to do “complete justice” in proper cases. This constitutional power stands apart from all other powers and is intended to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law.
	9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice
	moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given thepeculiar

no.

2 have solemnized their marriage after

attain
the w

ing majority and a child is also borne out of
edlock.

9.
Kirub
2025
6, 7,

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.
akaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
SCC OnLine SC 2307, in its paragraph nos.
8 and 9 has held as hereunder:-
“6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is
not merely a wrong against an individual but
against society as a whole. When an offence is
committed, it wounds the collective conscience
of the society and therefore the society, acting
through its elected lawmakers, determines what
would be the punishment for such an offence
and how an offender should be dealt with, to
deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a
manifestation of the sovereign will of the
society. However, the administration of such law
is not divorced from the practical realities.
Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach.
This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of
each case: with firmness and severity wherever
necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It
is also in the best interest of society to bring a
dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw
inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law
aims to ensure not just punishment of the
guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the
social order.

7. With such perspective in mind, we need to
proceed to balance the competing interests of
justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

8. The founding fathers of the Constitution
conferred this Court with the extraordinary
power to do “complete justice” in proper cases.
This constitutional power stands apart from all
other powers and is intended to avoid situations
of injustice being caused by the rigid application
of law.

9. Per the law made by the legislature, the
appellant having been found guilty of a heinous
offence, the proceedings in the present case on
the basis of a compromise between the
appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But
ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for
compassion and empathy will not, in our
opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the
most serious offenders of law do receive justice

moderated by compassion from the courts,
albeit in appropriate cases. Given thepeculiar

facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.”
10. Thus, in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Apex Court by invoking its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India quashed the proceedings against the appellant-accused therein, including his conviction and sentence.
11. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that the
offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable.
12. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has
permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court.
13. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a
catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused.
14. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences
between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entireproceedings

facts and circumstances here, a balanced
approach combining practicality and empathy is
necessary. The appellant and the victim are not
only legally married, they are also in their
family way. While considering the offence
committed by the appellant punishable under
the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the
crime was not the result of lust but love. The
victim of crime herself has expressed her desire
to live a peaceful and stable family life with the
appellant,
upon
whom
she
is
dependent,
without the appellant carrying the indelible
mark on his forehead of being an offender.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings and
the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt
this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to
the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of
society itself.”

10. Thus, in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Apex Court by
invoking its power under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India quashed the proceedings
against the appellant-accused therein, including
his conviction and sentence.

11. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a

preliminary objection to the effect that the

offences sought to be compounded are non-
compoundable.

12. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana

reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has

permitted compounding of non-compoundable
offences with the permission of Court.

13. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a

catena of its judgments, has observed that in
cases where because of the compromise arrived
at between the parties, possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings as continuation of the same
would cause great prejudice and injustice to the
accused.

14. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present
compounding application is allowed. The offences

between
the
parties
are
permitted
to
be
compounded. As a result, the entireproceedings

of S.S.T. No. of 69 of 2021, (Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021), under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of
learned Additional District Judge/FTSC, Haridwar, are hereby quashed_qua_the applicant. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed.
15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Alok Mahra J.) 01.04.2026 Ujjwal

of S.S.T. No. of 69 of 2021, (Case Crime No. 0027
of 2021), under Sections 363, 366-A and
376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) r/w
Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of

learned Additional District Judge/FTSC, Haridwar,
are hereby quashed_qua_the applicant. FIR and
charge-sheet
filed
pursuant
thereto
stand
quashed.

15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

(Alok Mahra J.)
01.04.2026
Ujjwal

Lovekush Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovekush Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wajid Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs M/S Rpg Infratech

Sriram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sameer Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand

Divya Juyal Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun, District Dehradun

Umesh Kumar Alias Umesh Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand