No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 210 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent nos.2 and 3. 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 Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2019, State Vs. Irfan, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO, pending in the court of learned FTC/Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 5. In this case, mother of the victim lodged an FIR with the allegation that the victim was missing since the night of 26.06.2019 and after inquiry, it was revealed that the applicant have induced her and taken her to his place. After investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO. 6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 8. It is submitted that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 16 years and 6 months. Thereafter, applicant was released on bail and during that period, they have performed marriage on 29.12.2022. After the victim attained the age of majority, marriage was solemnized between them and out of the wedlock, two children are borne. 9. Parties are 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. 10. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits that they have amicably settled their dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 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 entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2019, State Vs. Irfan, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO, pending in the court of learned FTC/Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar, District 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.) 29.04.2026 Ujjwal