2026:UHC:720 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/307/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for private respondents. 4. The present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the summoning order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO)/F.T.S.C./ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2024, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. Hence, a Compounding Application has been filed jointly by the applicant and the respondents, supported by their respective affidavits, categorically stating that the dispute has been settled voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, and that the respondents do not wish to prosecute the applicant any further. It is thus submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of 2026:UHC:720 law. 6. In view of the Compounding Application so filed, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2025, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Haridwar for verification of the compromise and for recording their statements. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Haridwar has submitted a report dated 09.06.2025, wherein it has been clearly recorded that the parties appeared in person, their statements were duly recorded, and the compromise was found to be genuine, voluntary, and without any inducement, pressure, or coercion. The contents of the compromise deed were also duly verified. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the Compounding Application on the ground that the offences alleged against the applicant are non-compoundable in nature, and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the parties. 9. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that although the offences may technically be non- compoundable, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is fully empowered to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a lawful compromise, where the dispute is essentially private in nature, does not have any serious impact on society at large, and where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is further submitted that the compromise has been 2026:UHC:720 duly verified by the competent authority, and no overriding public interest is involved in the present matter. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record. 11. It is undisputed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, and has been duly verified pursuant to the order of this Court. The statements of the parties were recorded in person, and the compromise has been found to be genuine. 12. Though the learned State counsel opposed the Compounding Application on the ground that the offences are non- compoundable, it is well settled that the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not restrict the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that criminal proceedings arising out of private disputes may be quashed where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and no overriding public interest is involved. 13. In the present case, the dispute is purely personal in nature, the victim does not wish to pursue the prosecution, and no larger societal interest is affected. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose. 14. Accordingly, the Compounding Application is allowed. The summoning 2026:UHC:720 order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO)/F.T.S.C./Additional District & Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2024, along with the entire criminal proceedings, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. 15. The present C-528 application is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. (Alok Mahra, J.) 09.02.2026 Mamta