IMPORTANT POINT
The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on the settlement between the parties, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, namely Aryan, has come up in the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] seeking quashing of FIR No.85 of 2023, dated 10.11.2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’] Act, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla [H.P.] as well as consequent proceedings pending before the learned Court below.

2. Quashing of FIR and criminal-judicial proceedings arising therefrom, has been prayed for, on the ground, that due to the intervention of the family members of petitioner as well as the respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’], the matter has been amicably settled. It is averred that the petitioner has been falsely roped in, at the instance of others who were inimical against the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’], who have solemnized their marriage even prior to the registration of FIR dated 10.11.2023. It is further averred that the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] have no grudges and they have cordial relations with each other. Petitioner has stated that his conduct is unblemished and in these circumstances reliance has been placed upon decision in Cr. MMO No.648 of 2023, case titled Ranjeet Kumar versus State of H.P & Ors., decided on 08.12.2023, wherein the accused had been charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 212 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. Upon issuance of notice on 21.03.2024, this Court directed the respondent(s) No.1 & 2 to file a reply, to the instant petition. As a sequel to this, the State Authorities have filed a Status Report dated 03.04.2024 on the Instructions of Station House Officer, In-charge, Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, narrating the sequence of events that the FIR No.85 of 2023 was registered at the instance of the complainant, namely, Smt. Uma Devi. It was further mentioned that after the registration of FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2023. The State Authorities have stated that the petitioner and respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] were in live-in relationship and they have solemnized marriage with each other and have an offspring out of their wedlock. The Status Report does not contain any material revealing any objection to the quashing of FIR and the proceedings accruing therefrom, except that the investigation has been completed and the Challan has been presented before the Learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 21.12.2023.

4. In order to test the veracity of the claim, this Court passed an order on 21st March, 2024, directing the Respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] to appear in person. In compliance thereto she appeared along with the father, namely Shri Parkash and both of them stated that the respondent No.2 and petitioner [Aryan] have no grudges against each other. The matter was then listed on 27th March, 2024, on which date, the respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] made a statement before this Court, that she has married the petitioner-Aryan and she has no grudges against him. Even the complainant, Uma Devi had appeared before this Court on 27th March, 2024 and she has also corroborated that the petitioner [Aryan] and the Respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] have married and they have cordial relations with each other. The complainant further states that both have an offspring from their marital relations. The complainant as well as the Respondent No.2-Victim [‘X’] have stated that the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom may be set-aside to achieve the ends of justice, as the continuance of criminal proceedings shall lead to bitterness amongst them or may lead towards friction and resurgence of enmity inter se, despite the fact, that as on day, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, with one child and have cordial re