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. 828 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Gaurav Panwar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and3/complainant. 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 Special Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024, State Vs. Mohd. Sohail, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(j)(ii)/5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTSC/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim that the victim is missing since the night of 25.09.024 and in the FIR, it was mentioned that the age of the victim is around 18 years. Thereafter, when the victim was recovered from the company of the applicant, she refused to go with her parents and was sent to Nari Niketan. The date of birth of the victim was 15.12.2007, as such, on the date of incident she was a minor as her age was 17 years and 10 months. After attaining majority, applicant and the victim married and a baby child is also borne out of the wedlock on 03.01.2025. 6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 8. 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. 9. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits now they are living happily as husband and wife and a baby child is also borne out of the wedlock. It is further submitted that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 10. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 Special Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024, State Vs. Mohd. Sohail, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(j)(ii)/5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTSC/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge- sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 30.04.2026 Ujjwal