No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 608 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2024, State Vs. Ashu, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l),5(j)(ii)/ 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SCST Act, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ POCSO, Haridwar, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. Compounding application is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l),5(j)(ii)/ 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SCST Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 7. Parties are present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 8. Upon interaction, it is stated by respondent no. 2 that they have amicably resolved their dispute and she do not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant and respondent no. 2 have solemnized their marriage on 22.01.2024 and a child is also borne out of the wedlock. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307, in its paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 has held as hereunder: - “6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order. 7. With such perspective in mind, we need to proceed to balance the competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation. 8. The founding fathers of the Constitution conferred this Court with the extraordinary power to do “complete justice” in proper cases. This constitutional power stands apart from all other powers and is intended to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law. 9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.” 10. Thus, in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Apex Court by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of I ndia quashed the proceedings against the appellant-accused therein, including his conviction and sentence. 11. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. 12. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has permitted compounding of non- compoundable offences with the permission of Court. 13. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused. 14. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2024, State Vs. Ashu, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l),5(j)(ii)/ 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SCST Act, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ POCSO, Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FI R and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 07.04.2026 Ujjwal