High courts cannot invoke inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for heinous, non-compoundable offences, such as sexual assault against a minor, merely on the basis of a private compromise or settlement between the parties, as these crimes impact the collective interest of society.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the informant.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner is seeking quashing of criminal proceedings by way of Fakirganj PS Case No. 16/2025 (GDE No. 10 dated 1/2/2025); charge sheet No. 44/2025 dated 30/4/2025 submitted after completion of investigation in the said case under Section 329(4)/64/351(2) of the read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case had arisen out of an FIR dated 1/2/2025 lodged by the father of the alleged victim girl with the allegation that on 29/1/2025 at 4 PM, while his wife was absent at home, the accused petitioner entered their house and committed rape upon her daughter while she was alone and thereafter, he escaped and threatened her not to disclose the incident. It is further alleged that in the evening he came to know about the incident and also that her clothes were torn at that time.

4. The primary contention of the petitioner side is that in the meantime, an agreement dated 30.05.2025 was entered into between the accused petitioner and the informant whereby they are stated to have compromised the matter and the informant recording his no objection to the quashing of this matter.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the meantime, the girl has also become a major and they were in a love relationship earlier when the alleged incident is stated to have taken place and that now, with the consent of both the families, the accused petitioner and the girl are proposing to enter into matrimony and live together. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking quashing of this proceeding.

6. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to one FIR dated 1/2/2025, lodged by the mother of the petitioner against 5 persons who are stated to be members of an organization called NEMSU (Northeast Minority Students Union). It is emphasized by the learned counsel that this FIR was lodged prior to the FIR against the present petitioner. It is submitted that the FIR against the present petitioner giving rise to this case was lodged at the behest of the members of this organization NEMSU. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions:

(1) Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2023 (0) Supreme (SC) 692

(2) Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi , 2024 (0) Supreme (SC) 1069

(3) Kamrul Hussain @ Amrul Hussain @ Rinkul in Crl. Pet. No. 865/2025

(4) Aminul Hoque @ Aminur Mirda vs. State of Assam & Anr. in Crl. Pet. No. 1393/2025

(5) Sajid Laik Shekh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC-AS-52189-DB

(6) Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12912 of 2022.

7. The learned counsel for the informant submits that he has filed an additional affidavit and drawn attention to para 7 thereof and submits that the informant has no objection to quashing the proceedings and he also submits that they are going to marry. Paragraph 7 of the said additional affidavits may be reproduced herein below:

“That the statements made in paragraph 5 of the instant petition are true, hence I have admitted the same. It is true that on 18.07.2025 I and the accused sat together and executed a deed of compromise vide Sl No. 09/2025 dated 30.05.2025 and in the Deed I am the first party and the accused is t