SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010069262018 C482/691/2018 Sahzad --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned AGA for the State. 3. Mr. Kamaluddin, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. On the last occasion, i.e., 24th July, 2026, the applicant in person, respondent No. 2 in person, and the victim in person were present and were duly identified by their respective counsel. On that day, during the interaction with the applicant and respondent no.2 and the victim, Mrs. Naies, the victim had stated that she has married with Sahzad and she wants to lead a happy married life. Respondent no.2 had stated that the matter needs to be put to an end and decided amicably as it has been settled. Victim, therefore, states that she does not want to pursue the matter any further against the applicant. The applicant had also made a similar statement. 5. Today, while pressing the compounding application, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order dated 23rd July, 2026, passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Shoyab alias Abdul Rahman vs. State of Uttarakhand, rendered in C-528 No. 1590 of 2026, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the compounding application in a case, inter alia, involving an offence under Sections 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act. He submitted that, in that case also, the applicant and the victim were in love, and thereafter, the victim got married to the applicant. Drawing parallels with the present case, he submitted that, in the present case also, the applicant and the victim are now married and, in fact, have been blessed with three children. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings of the criminal case. 6. In this regard, reference also needs to be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, and the relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof are being quoted hereinunder: “7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children. 8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.” 7. In the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noting that the appellant therein and the third respondent (victim) were happily married, observed that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, as it would cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent, and their children. In the present case also, the facts are almost similar to the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. V.S. Rawat, has submitted that the present case pertains to the POCSO Act and, therefore, involves a non-compoundable offence; hence, compounding cannot be permitted. 9. In the aforesaid judgment in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that the High Court, instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, observed that an application for dropping the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the trial Court could not have recorded the statement and, in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. 10. It also needs to be mentioned that in the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another”, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another”, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offence and has held that in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., compounding can be done in non-compoundable offences. 11. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the objections raised by the learned AGA are overruled. 12. In the present case, it is evident that the victim and the applicant are happily married and have been blessed with three children. Hence, at this stage, permitting the matter to proceed to trial would cause undue harassment to the victim, the children, as well as the applicant. Therefore, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shoyab alias Abdul Rahman, rendered in C-528 No. 1590 of 2026, this is a fit case for allowing the compounding application. Accordingly, the Compounding Application (IA No. 5 of 2026) is allowed. 13. As a consequence thereof, the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 21 of 2018 (Case Crime No. 385 of 2017) under Section 363, 366A 376 (2) (h) (i) (1) I.P.C. and 5(h (ii), 1, q)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, PS Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar pending before Special Judge POCSO/ FTC/ Additional District Judge Haridwar, qua the present applicant, are hereby quashed. 14. The present criminal Misc. Application is disposed accordingly. 15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 06.08.2026 BS