JUDGMENT :

The two victims, namely, Kajal and Seema, who happens to be the real sisters, have joined the proceedings of the Court, through video conferencing, the aforesaid victims i.e. Respondent nos.2 and 3, had been duly identified by their counsel representing them, namely, Mr. Bharat Singh, who has made a statement that the victims, who have recorded their statement are Kajal and Seema.

2. The applicant Shri Mohit Kumar is present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. R.P. Singh.

3. The challenge in the present C482 application as given by the present applicant is to the Charge Sheet no.376/2019, dated 30.08.2019, as well as the summoning order dated 18.11.2020, which has resulted into the commencement of the Special Sessions Trial No.1983 of 2020, “State Vs. Mohit Kumar”, whereby he has been summoned by the order 02.09.2020 to be tried for the offences under sections 356, 376, 379, 506 and 511 of IPC, which was registered against him initially as Case Crime No.543 of 2019, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. After taking cognizance of the proceedings, the Special Session Trial, is pending consideration before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Roorkee, District Haridwar.

4. The C482 application is accompanied with a Compounding Application preferred under Section 320 of the CrPC, which has been duly signed by the applicant, as well as respondent no.2, the victim of the offence, the same is also supported by an independent affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, Seema, who had supported the contents of the Compounding Application, and had participated in the proceedings through video conferencing, and had recorded her statement in support of compounding application.

5. The parties to the proceedings, as well as, their respective counsels, who are representing them, have supported the contents of the Compounding Application, contending thereof, that since the parties to the dispute have amicably settled their controversy, hence on the basis of an amicable settlement, the criminal proceedings, as such, may be dropped.

6. The Compounding Application is being opposed by the Government Advocate on the ground that some of the offences, which are sought to be compounded for example that of section 356, 376 and 511, for which the summoning order has been issued by the trial court are not compoundable.

7. After having heard the learned Government Advocate, as well as, after scrutinizing the set of allegations which had been leveled in the FIR, and ultimately in the charge sheet also dated 30.08.2019, the set of allegations pertaining to the offences under section 376, is apparently not made out as it would not fall under any of the conditions of rape as defined under section 375 of IPC, because of the following allegations contained in the FIR:-

^^us esjs lkFk xyr dke djus dh dksf'k'k dh ,oa esjh QksVks [khapdj vius eksckby esa lso dj j[kh gS esjh eEeh vkseorh th vkSj esjh nhnh us mls le>kus gsrq cqyk;k rks mlus gekjs ?kj ektjk esa vkdj esjh nhnh ds gkFk ls Qksu Nhudj Hkkx x;k esa bl ?kVuk ls Mj x;h Fkh blfy,**

8. Apart from it, the victims, who had participated in the proceedings through video conferencing since they had made a statement that they have registered an FIR, on the basis of the pressure which was exerted by the villagers by adding flavor to the FIR, and since now after realizing their mistake they do not want to prosecute the present applicant any further in relation to the trial of the Special Session Trial No.1983 of 2020, “State Vs. Mohit Kumar”.

9. Even, this Court too after having interacted with the Government Advocate, as well as the victims who participated in the proceedings through video conferencing, is of the view that the offence under Section 376 of IPC, is not made out as it would not fall to be within the ambit of rape as elaborately defined under section 375 of IPC, coupled with the fact that the other allegations, which are not compoundable for example that of section 511 of IPC, th