IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.1164/2023 Date of Decision: 01st January, 2025. Vivek Chauhan .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.15/23 dated 16.02.2023 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 2. The averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit reveals that on 16.02.2023 complainant/respondent No.3 had got a FIR registered against the present petitioner under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. During the pendency of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 proceedings the dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide compromise deed dated 20.10.2023, copy whereof is appended along with the present petition. On attaining the age of majority, complainant/respondent No.3 had got married with the petitioner/accused. Marriage certificate has been placed on record vide Cr.MP No.6 of 2025. A perusal of the same reflects that marriage inter se parties was registered on 13.12.2024. 3. Statement of complainant/respondent No.3 stands recorded. She has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise of her own free will, volition and without any pressure. According to the complainant/respondent No.3, the dispute inter se parties stands amicably settled between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in issue, as the dispute inter se the parties stands amicably resolved. 6. From a perusal of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is evident that insofar as Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, are concerned, the same are not compoundable. 3 7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn to a case titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid down that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled the matter inter se them. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution, in cases where settlement is arrived at. The guiding factors being securing the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court. 8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into compromise permitting the proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR sought to be quashed to continue 4 would only result into an abuse of process and the same would not secure the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.15/23 dated 16.02.2023 under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 01st January, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)