Mohit Kucchal vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Mohit Kucchal, was named in a charge sheet filed under Section 370 IPC, following an FIR lodged on August 20, 2023. He was summoned to trial in SST No. 27 of 2024. The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the proceedings, stating he was not named in the FIR but was charge-sheeted later and subsequently enlarged on bail. The petition was supported by a compounding application, asserting the applicant had adopted the child of respondent no. 3. The Court stayed the trial proceedings and directed the District Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to provide instructions. The CWC reported that the child, named Aarav, was medically fit and admitted to a recognized trust. The applicant and respondent no. 3 were present in court, and respondent no. 3 confirmed giving the child in adoption. The applicant was granted custody of the child on May 24, 2024, and an adoption deed was registered on June 6, 2024.

Held

The Court held that the compounding application should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the applicant had validly adopted the child of respondent no. 3, as evidenced by a registered adoption deed dated June 6, 2024. The child had been in the applicant's custody since May 30, 2024, and the adoption deed was confirmed as valid by the State. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, particularly the State's concession that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose for the betterment of the child. The Court also interacted with the applicant and his wife, who were present with the adopted child, and found them to be happy with the child. Therefore, the Court quashed the proceedings of SST No. 27 of 2024 qua the applicant only. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving adoption, especially when the biological mother voluntarily gives the child for adoption and a valid adoption deed is executed, and the child's welfare is paramount, the criminal proceedings against the adoptive parent can be quashed for the betterment of the child, even if the offence is not compoundable by law, provided the State consents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2024, State vs. Nadeem & others, should be quashed qua the applicant, Mohit Kucchal, in light of a valid adoption deed and the best interest of the child, despite the offence under Section 370 IPC not being compoundable. The applicant argued that the adoption was voluntarily given by the biological mother (respondent no. 3), happily accepted by his family, and that dropping the proceedings would be in the best interest of the child's future and would prevent spoiling the applicant's family and the child. The State, through its counsel, conceded that for the betterment of the child, who had been adopted by the applicant, there was no useful purpose in continuing the proceedings against the applicant. While acknowledging that Section 370 IPC is not compoundable, the State counsel fairly submitted that the proceedings could be compounded considering the valid adoption deed and the acceptance of the adoption by the applicant's wife, for the child's betterment.