No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 717 of 2019 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to quash and set-aside the chargesheet, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 44 of 2019, State Vs. Naeem Khan, under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTC/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge, District Dehradun. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 on 05.08.2018, wherein, it is alleged that applicant entered her room and tried to molest her sexually, she somehow managed. Soon after lodging of the FIR, statements of the victim were recorded, wherein, she has not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter, the complainant filed an affidavit, wherein, she has mentioned that nothing happened with her, as narrated in the FIR. 6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties under Sections under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 8. Parties are present before this Court. They are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 9. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits she is now 26 years of age and at the time of incident, she was major, but, there was some discrepancy regarding her age. She further submits that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 10. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. It is further submitted that the age of the victim at the time of incident was less than 18 years. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 44 of 2019, State Vs. Naeem Khan, under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTC/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge, District Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 21.04.2026 Ujjwal