The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the compromise between the parties and the relevant legal precedents to quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.p.c. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly respectfully submitted that this criminal appeal filed by the humble appellant may very kindly be allowed and Judgment and sentence dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned special court Pocso act cases Hanumangarh, in session case No. 77/18 against the appellant, may very kindly be quashed and set aside".

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, are that on 08.06.2015, father of the girl submitted written report before SHO of Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh against the present appellant, alleging therein that the appellant, resident of Chishitya village, for last few days prior to lodging of the complaint, started stalking his minor daughter, and also tried to molest and harass her, through mobile phone, internet etc., whereupon the father (complainant), while taking a precautionary measure, sent his daughter to his sister's house at Fazilka District, Punjab. Despite that, the appellant continuously blackmailed and tried to befriend his minor daughter. The complainant made various complaints in this regard to the Sarpanch and the parents of the appellant, but the same could not yield fruitful results.

2.1. On 07.06.2015, the complainant visited the house of appellant, to inform the appellant's father of his son's (appellant's) conduct and to rectify the same, but, in turn, the appellant, with a revengeful motive, alongwith his family members and some other persons, armed along with iron rod etc., on the same day, at around 9 o'clock in the night trespassed the complainant's house, hurled abuses at him and physically assaulted him.

2.2. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, an FIR bearing No. 122/2015 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh under Sections 452, 354-D, 323 and 143 of IPC, Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, and Section 67 of IT Act. Thereafter, upon investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant was filed under Sections 452, 354 and 354-D of IPC and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act.

2.3. Thereafter, learned court below framed the charges against appellant under Sections 452, 354, 354-D and 323 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. And that on 05.08.2019, the compromise between parties arrived and submitted before learned court below, but the same was only considered only to the extent of Section 323 of IPC.

2.4. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the defence of appellant, while denying the charges levelled against him, was that he was kidnapped and abducted on 07.06.2015 by Sukhdev Singh, Umed Singh, Luvjeet, Sandeep and others, apart therefrom, they physically assaulted the appellant; also an FIR bearing no. 315/2015, in connection with the said incident, was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh under Sections 323, 325, 341, 382, 365, and 34 of IPC against the said persons.

3. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2022, acquitted the present appellant for the offence under Section 452 of IPC, granting him the benefit of doubt; also acquitted him for the offence under Section 323 IPC on the basis of the aforementioned compromise; but convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 354-D of I.P.C. and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act; for the conviction under Section 354 IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was sentenced to under simple imprisonment for two years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further one month's S.I.; in view of the conviction, under Section 354 IPC, the separate sentence under Section 354D IPC was not ordered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the cases were settled by the aforementioned compromise before the learned Court below, but the learned Court below did not consider the compro