JUDGMENT :

1. Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the entire record.

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/ applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No.20 of 2014 "State vs. Pravin Kumar Singh and others" arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2013, under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, relating to Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow as well as impugned charge sheet no.35 of 2014, dated 15.02.2014 submitted against the applicant no.1 under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and the applicant nos.2 and 3 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case crime in the light of compromise took place between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a false first information report came to be lodged against the accused/ applicants, who are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. His further submission is that in fact, the first information report came to be lodged at the behest of opposite party no.2 only because of the fact that the present applicant no.1 was acquainted with the opposite party no.2, victim. His next submission is that the victim, in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case. However, during the pendency of aforesaid criminal case, the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.

5. His next submission is that, in fact, the accused/ applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, victim have married and are living happily together as husband and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

6. His further submission is that having regard to the fact that the accused/ applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, the victim are living together as husband and wife, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned criminal proceeding pending against the accused/ applicants. The chance of clinching conviction, in the light of aforesaid fact, is remote and bleak.

7. Sri Subhash Chandra Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has admitted the fact that the opposite party no.2, victim has married with the applicant no.1 and they are living happily together as husband and wife.

8. Per contra, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been enacted by the Legislature for prevention and protection of children as defined in the said Act. His further submission is that admittedly charge sheet has been submitted against the present applicant no.1 under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and against the applicant nos.2 and 3 under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also submitted that the victim was a child on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no compromise between such victim and the accused/ applicants is permissible in law. Therefore, the present application is misconceived, which is liable to be dismissed.

10. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 has held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the f