The Allahabad High Court, while analysing the responsibilities of the judiciary in safeguarding individual liberties, has held that the judiciary can’t function as a mere observer when vulnerable citizens approach for seeking justice. The Court stressed that the legal system must remain sensitive to social realities and actively intervene to prevent injustice.
“Many of the litigants belong to the downtrodden and weaker sections of society who are defenceless, poor and ignorant. What should be a judge’s response when the person who comes knocking is a woman, child, elderly, infirm or disabled, having no resources to fight? The judiciary cannot remain a mere bystander or silent spectator but must become an active participant in the judicial process, using law in the service of social justice through a proactive goal-oriented approach…………………” the Court remarked.
The said order has been passed by the Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra while hearing the petition filed by accused Ashwini Anand and finally allowed the instant application. The case involved a woman who, despite having married the accused and repeatedly stating that the original allegations were false, continued to be required to attend court proceedings. Describing this as “deeply distressing” the Court observed that compelling a woman to appear in court for months or years merely to secure acquittal of her innocent spouse was unacceptable.
“It would be surprising to see why precious time and resources of the judicial system should be wasted where the result is bound to be the same, i.e., the discharge or acquittal of the accused……………………”
The Bench further noted, adding that the practical difficulties and emotional burdens faced by litigants in trial courts “cannot be ignored.”
The complainant’s father had filed a kidnapping case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act in April 2024. However, the victim clearly denied the allegations in her statement under Section 161 CrPC, affirming that she had gone from her home of her own will and had no physical relationship with the accused at that time. She subsequently married the accused in June 2025 after attaining the age of majority and their marriage was also registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. An application was submitted on the behalf of accused wife before the High Court and requested to quash the matter.
Despite the State’s argument that offences under the POCSO Act constitute crimes against society and cannot be dismissed on the basis of compromise, the Court ruled that continuing prosecution in such circumstances would amount to harassment. It highlighted the social harm inflicted on women subjected to prolonged public scrutiny in such trials, noting that “…………….facing all evil eyes, criticism and all sorts of comments which may be against the dignity of a woman, can also not be ignored.”
In a broader reflection on the mission of the judiciary, the Court stated “Judges must remain alive to the socio-economic realities of Indian life to wipe every tear from every eye. Faith in the constitutional values and being always ready to use law as an instrument for achieving the goals of rendering justice, must be the sole objective.
Given that the couple is legally married and the woman has fully supported the matter, the High Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and quashed the proceedings of the case.
Case: Ashwani Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 others
