JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash charge sheet dated 25.9.2016, cognizance order dated 10.2.2017, non-bailable warrant dated 10.5.2022 and entire proceeding of Case No. 294 of 2021 (State vs. Fakre Alam) arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2015, u/s 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 I.P.C. and 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had willingly married to the applicant and she has been residing with him as his wife. Thereafter, compromise was also entered between the parties regarding this case because victim as well as applicant have been residing as husband and wife and age of the victim is also above 18 years as per the medical examination.

4. This Court vide order dated 28.1.2023 directed the court below to verify the compromise entered between the parties. In pursuance of the order of this Court, compromise between the parties has been verified by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Bareilly in Special Criminal Case No. 294 of 2021 (State vs. Fakre Alam) vide order dated 24.5.2023 which has been produced before this Court along second supplementary affidavit dated 30.5.2023, filed by counsel for the applicant. Here the sole question arises as to whether on the basis of compromise offence u/s 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act can be quashed.

5. Allahabad High Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. & another (Application u/s 482 No. 2941 of 2023) as well as in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another (Application u/s 482 No. 8514 of 2023) observed that once the case is made out on the basis of statement of victim girl then proceeding under POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and accused because the offence under POCSO Act is offence against the society.

6. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh. vs. Laxmi Narayan [AIR 2019 SC 1296]; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar [AIR 2019 SC 1106]; and Parvat Bhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4842] observed that offence against the society should not be quashed on the basis of compromise or weak evidence. However, in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 SCC Online SC 966], the Apex Court observed that the offence under special statute including SC/ST Act, though the offence is against society, can also be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in certain cases on the basis of compromise, but this power should be exercised during pendency of trial or appeal not thereafter. Paragra-10 of the above judgement is quoted as below:-

"10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent po