No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No. 1165 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Ankush Singhal, learned counsel for 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 Special Session Trial No. 221 of 2025, State Vs. Amit and Others, under Section 3/4 r/w 16/17 of POCSO Act and Section 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, pending in the court of learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant, in which, it was alleged that his sister, who was a minor, has been forcefully married with one Jitendra and in this conduction of this marriage, the elder sister of the complainant herself alongwith other family members, was involved in arranging and performing the marriage. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicants under different sections. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that at the time when the marriage was performed in the month of August, 2024, the victim was above 16 years of age and after her marriage, Jitendra and the victim are living as husband and wife and even after attaining the age of marriage, she has not moved any application for annulling the marriage. As such, the marriage is now valid marriage. It is further submitted that family of both, the victim and the applicant, are less educated and are daily-wagers and do not have much knowledge about the law. 7. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 9. 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. 10. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that they have amicably settled their dispute with the applicants and they do not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicants. 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 and also considering the fact that now after their marriage, Jitendra and the victim are living happily as husband and wife and even after attaining the age of marriage, victim has not moved any application for annulling the marriage. As such, the marriage is now valid marriage. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause undue hardship to the families of both, applicant as well as the victim. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 15. Accordingly, the present compounding application is hereby allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 221 of 2025, State Vs. Amit and Others, under Section 3/4 r/w 16/17 of POCSO Act and Section 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, pending in the court of learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 30.05.2026 Ujjwal