JUDGMENT :

This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Divyam Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Tarhasi P.S.Case No.73/2018 corresponding to G.R.No.258/2019, S.T.No.198/2019 and for quashing the charge sheet dated 31.07.2020 against the petitioner. The instant case has been lodged on a written report of one Sabita Devi stating therein that, on dated 06.01.2018 at about 2 p.m when the informant left her home to reach the house of her sister situated at Padma under Manatu Police Station, the informant sat on the tempo wherein three persons including the driver who were not known to the informant and after stopping the tempo, the persons riding of the tempo asked as to where the informant has to go. The informant stated that she has to be destined at Padma. Subsequently, the persons riding on the tempo stated to have disclosed that their destination is Padma also, as such, the informant could accompany her for her destination. The aforesaid three persons were taking to one another out of them one was named as Saggir. Further, it has been alleged that when the tempo reached at Anant Bridge nearby Chanda Petrol Pump then the driver of the tempo took out the pistol from inside the seat and pointed on the informant and the time of occurrence took place at about 4:30 p.m. After pointing the pistol on the ear pit, the three persons sitting on the tempo extended threat to accompany the informant with them and out of threat, the informant accompanied the accused person and under the bush near plash tree the rape was committed one by one and she became unconscious. Further when she regained, since then she found that her sari was found beside her body and was found herself in a half naked condition. The informant further alleges that the miscreants also took away her ear ring, pedant of silver and anklet of silver. The informant anyhow came to the road and found unknown persons were going through the motorcycle and on the indication of the informant, the motorcycle rider stopped and through mobile phone, the incident was reported to her cousin sister and on receipt information furnished by the informant her cousin sister came to her and then proceeded to Tarhasi Police Station for lodgment of the F.I.R.

4. The F.I.R has been instituted against the unknown miscreants under sections 376(D) and 379 of the I.P.C.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the girl has not taken the name of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C and subsequently under section 164 Cr.PC again the name of the petitioner has not been taken by the girl. He further submits that the compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 and for that an Interlocutory Application has been filed for compromise. He submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected in A.B.A.No.6007 of 2020 vide order dated 04.02.2020 by this Court and after disposal of the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that this case is arising out of Section 376(D) and Section 379 of the I.P.C. He submits that section 376 IPC is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C.

8. Both the counsels (petitioner and the O.P.No.2) submits that this Court is having the powers under sec