Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18300 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23704 of 2023 Applicant :- Anil Raikawar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Tripathi,G.A.,Manish Patel Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. No one appears on behalf of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, despite the fact that there are two learned counsels appearing in the matter. 4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Anil Raikawar, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.638 of 2021 (State vs. Anil Raikawar), arises out of Case Crime No. 335 of 2021, under Section 354-A I.P.C., Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi together with impugned charge sheet dated 27.07.2021 and impugned summoning order dated 08.09.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) and with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed, during the pendency of the present application. 5. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 25.07.2024 and paragraph no. 3 to it, it is submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise. It is submitted that in view of the same, the proceedings between the parties be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon an order dated 10.04.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application 482 Cr.P.C. No. 832 of 2017 (Gireesh @ Vikas Vs. State of U.P. and another) : 2023:AHC:76048 and submits that in an identical circumstances, the said Bench has quashed the criminal proceedings of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing. 8. Be that as it may, the law as has been culled out by the Apex Court in matters of such nature. 9. In so far as the proceedings under the POCSO Act is concerned, the same cannot be quashed in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents [Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023] decided on 20.08.2024 paragraph 22, 23 & 23.1. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others: [Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12912 of 2022] decided on 07.11.2024 held that offence under the POCSO Act is heinous offence and not of private nature and hence the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Further, this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 03 Others: Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:56128 in Application U/S 482 9169 of 2024 has also observed that offence under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. 10. Looking to the facts of the matter, the limited argument on behalf of the applicant and the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (supra), Ramji Lal Bairwa & Another (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar (supra), as the proceedings of the present case are under the POCSO Act also, the same cannot be quashed. 11. The present petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly, rejected. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within three weeks from today. 14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad