2026:UHC:3465 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C5 2 8 / 9 1 4 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 & 3. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2022, arising out of offences punishable under Section 67-B of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000 and Sections 14(1) and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO)/Sessions Judge, Champawat, qua the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2, who is the mother of the victim, lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that about three months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., her minor daughter aged about 14 years had gone near Chhatar Bridge, where the named co-accused persons allegedly enticed her away in a vehicle and committed wrongful acts with her along with certain unknown persons. It is submitted that during the course of 2026:UHC:3465 investigation, the name of the present applicant surfaced and, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act and Section 17 of the POCSO Act on the allegation that the applicant had recorded the alleged incident and made the video viral through electronic means. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, wherein she did not support the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. and specifically stated that no such wrongful act had been committed upon her by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during trial, the victim was examined as PW-1 and she categorically denied the prosecution allegations, stating that no such incident had taken place and that the F.I.R. had been lodged due to misunderstanding. Learned counsel would submit that the victim did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that no offence under the provisions of the POCSO Act or Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act is made out against the present applicant in view of the statements of the victim. It is also submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and respondent nos.2 2026:UHC:3465 and 3 do not wish to prosecute the applicant any further. In this regard, a joint compounding application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent nos.2 and 3, has been filed before this Court stating therein that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure, and that the complainants do not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 8. Learned State Counsel would oppose the application on the ground that the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the parties nor the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution case during the course of trial. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition before the trial Court as PW-1, has not supported the prosecution case and has categorically denied the occurrence of the alleged incident; that, there is nothing on record to prima facie substantiate the allegations levelled against the present applicant regarding recording or dissemination of any objectionable material through electronic means. It is 2026:UHC:3465 also borne out from the record that respondent nos.2 and 3 have entered into a compromise with the applicant voluntarily and without any coercion. They have categorically stated before this Court that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 11. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Though the offences alleged are non- compoundable in nature, the High Court, in appropriate cases, may quash the proceedings where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuance of proceedings would result in abuse of process of Court. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, guidelines were laid down for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the Court must consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, it has been reiterated that the inherent 2026:UHC:3465 powers of the High Court are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of Court. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly considering that the victim herself has not supported the prosecution allegations either in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or in her deposition before the trial Court, and further considering the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that the possibility of conviction of the applicant is extremely remote and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 14. Accordingly, the compounding application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2022, arising out of offences punishable under Section 67-B of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000 and Sections 14(1) and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO)/Sessions Judge, Champawat, are hereby quashed qua the present applicant. 15. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 07.05.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:3465