ORDER :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 160/2023 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar Sadar, District Jodhpur City West for the offence under Sections 506, 376(2), 376(2)(n), 376-D of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act and entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376(2), 376(2)(n), 376-D of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Sections 506, 376(2), 376(2)(n), 376-D of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya vs. State of Delhi and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter-alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.”

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath vs. State of Rajasthan and Another), which reads as follows:

“1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No. 94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

3. L