JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR No. 389/2019 dated 22.11.2019 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar for offences under Section 377 IPC read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

2. The respondent No. 2/complainant filed the instant FIR stating that he is a resident of H. No. 26/70 Ist floor, West Patel Nagar, Central Delhi working as a mason and stays with his son aged seven years. He stated that on 20.11.2019, he returned after finishing his work at 8.00 p.m., and found his son crying. When he enquired from his son, his son told him after he left for work at 2.00 p.m., the accused who stays in the same building had come and sodomised him.

3. It is stated in the complaint that the underwear of the child was wet with blood. The FIR was lodged on 21.11.2019 and on completing investigation, the final report has also been filed stating that there is enough material to proceed against the petitioner for offences under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.

4. The instant petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR primarily on the ground that due to intervention of elders of the society and friends, the parties have decided to amicably put an end to the disputes and differences. The affidavit of respondent No. 2/complainant has also been filed stating that all the disputes have been settled between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner and that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the FIR No. 389/2019 dated 22.11.2019 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar for offences under Section 377 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act being quashed.

5. Heard Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Raheja, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant and Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State.

6. The respondent No. 2 has also joined the proceedings through video conferencing.

7. Section 377 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable offences. It is well settled that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise, the High Court should scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement (refer State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors reported as (2014) 15 SCC 29).

8. The High Court cannot mechanically quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences by exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC just because parties have decided to bury their hatchets. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be distinguished on the powers which lies on the court to compound the offences compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, High Court has the power to quash even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, but the power has to be exercised fairly and with caution. The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr reported as: (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed as under:

"29. 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 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.