JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith Mr. K. Angami, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 11.03.2021 lodged by the complainants (respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4) and the proceedings against the petitioners in GR-17/2021 in connection with Women Police Station Case No. 04/2021 under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 which is presently pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima, Nagaland.

3. Facts leading to the institution of the present petition are that on 11.03.2021, a written complaint was filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 at North Police Station (Kohima, Nagaland) on the allegation that the present petitioners have physically assaulted a minor girl aged 5 years whom they had adopted. Subsequently the case was registered on 12.03.2021 and the petitioners were apprehended by the Kohima North Police personnel. The Investigating Officer, after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section 323 IPC read with Section 75 JJP Act, 2015. The case Investigating Officer also submitted 15 nos. of prosecution witnesses to prove their case against the petitioners. The petitioners were granted bail on 13.05.2021.

4. On 19.01.2022 the learned Trial Court framed charge under section 323 IPC read with section 75 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act against the accused petitioners to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 20.05.2021 the trial court examined PW-4, thereafter, summons was issued to PW-2 and PW-3 for evidence on 15.06.2022. Pending trial, on 27.04.2022, a compromise deed was executed between the present petitioners with the complainants (respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4) and the victim’s father (respondent No. 5). As per the terms of the compromise deed the parties have stated that they have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves and to live in peace and harmony. The parties mutually resolved that there would be no purpose served if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue and they have no objection if the criminal proceedings in GR-17/2021 is quashed and set aside.

5. In pursuance of the compromise deed executed between the parties the present petitioner approached the learned Trial Court by filing an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. to compound the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 75 of JJP Act. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the compromise deed dated 27.04.2022, had examined one of the complainants and arrived to a conclusion that it was a fit case to compound the offence under Section 323 IPC against the petitioners as it appears that the conviction is remote and bleak on the parties having made a compromise deed and accordingly acquitted the petitioners of the offence under Section 323 IPC. The learned Trial Court was, however, of the view that since Section 75 JJP Act is a non-compoundable offence it was only the High Court that had the inherent power to compound a non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings. Hence, the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Moa Jamir submits that the parties have executed the compromise deed on 27.04.2022, which was made voluntarily and with no coercion as noted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima, Nagaland in its order dated 13.05.2022. The compromise deed would facilitate the parties to live in peace and that the offence is of personal nature. The learned counsel submits that though the offence u/s 75 JJP Act was not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C., however the offence is not of a heinous nature, the sentence prescribed under section 75 JJP Act was only upto 3 years imprisonment. That considering the fact that the complainants and the father of the victim do