The court's decision established the principle that in cases where the victim and the accused have settled their dispute, and there is a remote possibility of conviction, the court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent oppression and prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR bearing no. 0289/2016 dated 21.05.2016 registered under section 363 IPC at P.S Sagarpur at the instance of the respondent no. 2 along with the consequential proceedings stated to be pending in the court of the Court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi titled as State Vs. Vinod Kumar Pandey in SC bearing no.264/2021 under sections 363/376/366 IPC.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by investigating officer SI Aarti Yadav, P.S Sagarpur accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1/State and the respondents no.2& 3 are present in the court along with counsel and accepts notice.

4. FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the respondent no. 2 wherein he suspected that some unknown person has kidnapped his daughter i.e. respondent no. 3 after taking out from his Guardianship. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested and after conclusion of the investigation Final Report as per section 173 Cr.P.C/charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 363/376/366 IPC and under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012 (POCSO) wherein the petitioner was implicated. The trial is stated to be pending in the Court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

5. The statement of the respondent no. 3 was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C during the investigation by Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari, Duty Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide proceedings dated 15.09.2020 wherein the respondent no. 3 stated that she does not want to pursue with the judicial proceedings as she got married with her consent and her parents are now happy with the marriage. The respondent no. 3 was found to be minor at the time of the incident.

6. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 got married on 21.05.2016 and have become parents of a child. The petitioner is working as a labourer and is taking care of the respondent no. 3 and their child. The respondent no. 3 also stated that she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner who is taking her care as well as of the child. The respondent no. 2 also stated that consequential judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0289/2016 may be quashed.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/State stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 got married with each other and the offences are complained of are non-compoundable offences.

8. The extraordinary power under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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.

9. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. 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. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter changeable in law. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 705 observed that simply because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2012)10 SCC 303 laid down following principles:

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdi