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. 804 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pushpa Bhatt, learned D.A.G. alongwith Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3/ complainant. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2026, State Vs. Pratap, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(l)/ 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC (POCSO), Haridwar. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim, wherein, it is alleged that the victim, who was 17 years of age, was induced and taken away by the applicant on 21.01.2026. 6. During investigation, the applicant was arrested and the victim was found in the company of the applicant. In her statement given under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, victim has categorically submitted that she was in love with the applicant and they both intend to marry, but, when this fact was told to her family, they refused, therefore, she on her own sweet will, left her home on 21.01.2026. She has further submitted that when she would attain the age of majority, then they will marry. 7. Now, victim and mother of the applicant have filed a compounding application. They both are also present in the Court today and are duly identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 8. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, the victim submits before the Court that presently she is living in the house of the applicant with mother of the applicant as her parents have thrown her out of the house. She further submits that she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 9. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is in judicial custody and if he is released from the judicial custody, then they would get marry within a period of fifteen days from the date of his release. 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. 05 of 2026, State Vs. Pratap, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(l)/ 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC (POCSO), 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 Mah r a J.) 24.04.2026 Ujjwal