The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., and the court must consider societal interests and the welfare of the parties in deciding on the quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise.

JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned for the opposite party no.2 has not appeared even in the revised call.

2. Heard Mr. Sachin Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 25.06.2015 and the cognizance order dated 30.07.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 36 of 2015 (State Vs. Rajiv Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Doghat, District-Baghpat, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat.

4. On 13.09.2022, the following order was passed:-

"As per office report dated 13.09.2022, notice has been personally served upon opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has married opposite party no.3 and they are living a happy married life.

An FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 (maternal uncle of opposite party no.3) who is trying to ruin the married life of the parties by not appearing before the Court. In such a situation and in view of various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, continuance of proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of law.

In view of the above, let the applicant as well as opposite party no.3 be present before the Court on the next date.

List on 21.09.2022.

Interim order is extended till the next date of listing."

5. In compliance of the order of the Court dated 13.09.2022, the applicant, namely, Rajiv Kumar and the opposite party no.3, namely, Upasana are present alongwith her son, who is four and half years old, in the Court today, who have been identified and signatures have also been attested by learned counsel for the applicant.

6. The rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Mr. Sachin Kanaujia, learned counsel for the applicant, in which, deponent is Upasana, who is wife of applicant.

7. On query being raised, the opposite party no.3, namely, Upasana has stated that she has married the applicant out of her own sweet will and is living happy married life. Out of their wedlock, they are blessed with a male child, who is presently four and half years old. As per her date of birth, she was nearly 17 and half years old at the time of marriage. She has also stated that her in-laws have accepted their marriage and she is staying happily with them. She has also stated that FIR has been lodged by her maternal uncle, i.e. opposite party no.2, who is trying to ruin the married life of Upasana. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and deposed before this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another vs. State of Rajasthan report on 2022 LawSuit(SC) 463 and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 28.07.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.10258 of 2021.

9. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

10. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cogni