2026:UHC:2584 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/622/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Devashish Rana, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. The present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, arising out of F.I.R. No. 76 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the basis of a compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no.2/complainant lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. alleging that the applicant had molested the victim on several occasions and had also established physical relations with her. It is submitted that after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet against the applicant, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance and the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2024 are presently pending. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim appeared before the concerned Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she did not support the allegations as narrated in the F.I.R. Rather, she categorically stated that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and had even expressed her desire to marry him. However, her mother did not agree to the said proposal and, under emotional distress and pressure from certain villagers 2026:UHC:2584 who had seen the applicant and the victim together, the F.I.R. came to be lodged. It is further submitted that the victim has also stated that no incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., had ever taken place. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R., the victim was about 16 years of age and now she has attained the age of majority. 7. It is next contended that the applicant and respondent no.2/victim have now amicably resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In this regard, a joint compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent no.2/victim, has been filed before this Court stating that the dispute has been settled amicably and that the complainant does not intend to prosecute the applicant any further. 8. The applicant as well as respondent no.2/victim are present in person before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no.2/victim has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the F.I.R. was lodged due to pressure from the villagers. She has further stated that no incident as alleged in the F.I.R. had ever occurred and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant. She has also stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure and that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the applicant are quashed. 9. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious offences which are non-compoundable in nature, particularly the offences under the POCSO Act. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties nor the filing of the joint compounding 2026:UHC:2584 application supported by their affidavits. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that the dispute between the parties arose in the backdrop of a personal relationship between the applicant and respondent no.2. The victim is present before this Court and has categorically stated that the allegations made in the F.I.R. were levelled due to pressure from villagers and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. The Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties appears to be voluntary, genuine and without any coercion or undue influence. 12. It is true that the offences alleged in the present case are non-compoundable in nature. However, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the Court is satisfied that the dispute is essentially private in nature and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab has held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, provided that such exercise of power would secure the ends of justice. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and held that the Court must consider whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would be futile and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice. 2026:UHC:2584 14. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. In the present case, considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the presence of the victim before this Court, and her categorical statement that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 16. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to secure the ends of justice. 17. Accordingly, the compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed. 18. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, arising out of F.I.R. No. 76 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are hereby quashed. 19. The present C-528 application is accordingly allowed. 20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 09.04.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:2584