No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No. 1234 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, learned counsel (through V.C.) for respondent nos. 2 and 3/complainant. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to set-aside the chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025, State Vs. Mohd. Rizwan, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 87 of BNS and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTC/Special Judge, POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, District Dehradun, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. In this case, a missing report was lodged by respondent no. 2 that his sister, who was minor have been missing. During investigation, the victim was found in the company of the applicant and thereafter, FIR was lodged. 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 has submitted that he has amicably settled his dispute with the applicant and he does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Respondent no. 3/victim has also submitted that she on her own sweet will went with the applicant and after attaining the age of majority, both of them have solemnized their marriage on 13.02.2026 and now they both are living happily as husband and wife. 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. 14 of 2025, State Vs. Mohd. Rizwan, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 87 of BNS and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned FTC/Special Judge, POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, District Dehradun, 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.) 03.06.2026 Ujjwal