Compromise between parties in non-compoundable criminal cases can satisfy interests of justice and lead to quashing proceedings when there is minimal chance of conviction.

ORDER :

Venkatesh Naik T, J.

Heard Sri. Harshawardhana M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – de facto complainant.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.643/2024 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO), Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 137 (1)(b), 64(1), 645(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is that the victim was aged about 17 years 4 months in the year 2024. The petitioner came into contact with the victim, developed love with her and on a promise to marriage, he took her and committed penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on her and thereafter, he made criminal intimidations to eliminate her. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Soon after receipt of the charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused. Taking exception to the same, this petitioner filed petition to quash the entire proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim (respondent No.2 – de facto complainant) on 13.05.2025 before the Sub-Registrar, Murgod, and the marriage has since been registered. It is further submitted that the families of both the accused and the victim are now maintaining cordial relations, and the earlier differences have been amicably resolved. The accused and the victim are presently residing together under one roof. In light of this development, a compromise petition has been filed, wherein the parties have expressed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Since the alleged offences are non- compoundable in nature, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings and permission to record the compromise.

5. Today, both the accused and respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant are present before the Court. They have affirmed that they are legally married, having registered their marriage before the Sub-Registrar, and that the dispute between them has been resolved amicably.

6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court may allow the compromise and quash the proceedings.

7. Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – de facto complainant submits that since the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim, in view of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings may be quashed.

8. Perused the materials available on record. The de facto complainant has married accused and now she is residing with the accused happily. Since, the accused and the de facto complainant have compromised the dispute with each other, it will be a futile exercise, if the accused is subjected to trial, since, the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr, [(2014) 6 SCC 466] has held at para Nos.31 to 35 as under:

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 4