The court's decision was based on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the settlement between the parties, and the impact on society.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 dated 29.12.2014 under section 363 IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1/State and the respondent no.2, victim is present in the court along with her mother who was the complainant in the present FIR and accepts notice.

4. The FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 dated 29.12.2014 was got registered under section 363 IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh on the complaint of mother of the respondent no.2 wherein the complainant suspected that the petitioner had kidnapped her daughter i.e. the respondent no. 2 and thereafter on the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under sections 376 IPC & section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The trial is stated to be pending in the Court of Ms. Harleen Singh, ADJ-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 got married on 01.01.2015 and have already been blessed with one child. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are now living happy married life. In these circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 along with consequential proceedings be quashed. The respondent no.2 also stated that she after registration of the present FIR got married with the petitioner out of her free will and is blessed with one child and at present she is living happy married life with the petitioner. The respondent no.2 also stated that the present petition be allowed and the FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 alongwith consequential proceedings is allowed to be quashed.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State stated that the respondent no.1 was minor at the time of commission of alleged offence and argued that the offences for which the charge sheet has filed against the petitioner are non-compoundable and as such the present petition cannot be allowed.

7. The extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

8. The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:

16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists.

9. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code.

10. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equal or inter-changeable in law. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others v Radhika and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 705 considered the exercise of inherent power by the High Court under section 482 in a matter where the offence was not compoundable and observed that simply because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 Code of Criminal Pro