2026:UHC:2726 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/429/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Harish Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been preferred seeking quashing of the charge- sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable Sections 354, 504, 506 & 509 I.P.C. and Sections 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no. 2, who is the father of the victim, had lodged an F.I.R. alleging therewith that his minor daughter was stopped by the applicant when she was coming from the school on 12.10.2021 at 2.00 p.m. and threatened her that he will ruin her family and frightened by such a threat, his daughter, after being harassed by the applicant, came home and cut the vein of her left hand. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the present applicant, on the basis of which the learned trial court proceeded to take cognizance and summon the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case as the applicant and the daughter of the complainant are of the same age group and fell in love with each 2026:UHC:2726 other but the complainant was not agree with their relationship; that, the applicant tried very hard to console him for the marriage of the applicant and the daughter of the complainant but he refused for the marriage. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant and respondent no. 2/ complainant has now amicably resolved their dispute and have decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In support thereof, a joint compounding application has been filed, duly supported by affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent no. 2, wherein it has been categorically stated that the matter has been settled voluntarily and that they have no objection to the quashing of the proceedings. 8. The applicant as well as respondent no. 2 are present in person before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no. 2 has affirmed the factum of compromise and has stated in unequivocal terms that the same has been entered into out of his own free will, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure, and that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further. 9. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious and heinous offences, which are non-compoundable in nature, particularly those under the POCSO Act. However, he fairly does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties or the filing of the joint compounding application supported by their affidavits. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2026:UHC:2726 11. The complainant is present before this Court and has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. This Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntary, genuine and free from any coercion or undue influence. 12. It is true that the offences alleged in the present case, particularly those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are non- compoundable in nature and ordinarily such offences are treated as offences against society. The Court is, therefore, required to exercise greater caution while considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of compromise. 13. However, it is equally well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not precluded from quashing criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, where the facts of the case reveal that the dispute is essentially private and does not have a serious impact on society at large, and where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. In the present case, from the material available on record and the submissions advanced, it transpires that the parties were acquainted with each other and are of similar age group. The allegations do not disclose any element of aggravated sexual assault of a heinous nature but appear to have arisen out of a personal relationship between the parties, which has now been amicably resolved. The complainant, who is the father of the victim, has appeared before this Court and has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian 2026:UHC:2726 Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise, even in non-compoundable offences, having regard to the nature of the offence and the overall circumstances of the case. 16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the voluntary and genuine compromise between the parties, and the fact that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction ought to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 17. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. 18. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed. 19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 16.04.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e5 84af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd 642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd 54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a19 1648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.16 19:34:45 +05'30'