The Court's inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings when allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The applicant-accused has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.39 of 2020, 'State vs. Raju Singh', pending before the Court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Subsequent to submission of the charge sheet, learned Trial Court took cognizance and passed the summoning order against applicant-accused for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short, 'IPC'), 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. Heard Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, learned Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Anurag Bisaria, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Informant and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4/Victim.

4. The applicant - accused is present in-person before the Court and he is identified by Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate. The respondent no.3 - informant and brother of the victim is present in-person before this Court and he is identified by Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate. The respondent no.4-Victim is present in-person before this Court. She is identified by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.

5. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate submitted that at the time of the alleged offence i.e. on 08.04.2019, the respondent no.4, the alleged victim, was major. In support of this submission, the applicant has filed a copy of the Birth Certificate of the respondent no.4, issued on 07.06.2005 under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8/13 of the Uttarakhand Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003. According to the said Certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 21.02.2001. The said Birth Certificate has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State.

6. According to the parties, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent no.4 on 20.04.2019. This fact is also not disputed.

7. Admittedly, a girl child has been born from the wedlock of the applicant and respondent no.4. The said child was born on 23.03.2020.

8. In the said facts, Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that in the said circumstances, present matter can be compounded. He has given a written no objection on the back of the order-sheet.

9. The applicant - accused, the respondent no.3-informant & respondent no. 4-victim submitted that they have filed their affidavits with their free will and without any pressure. The respondent nos.3 and 4 further submitted that they do not want to proceed with the said criminal case against the applicant-accused.

10. Though, this Court would normally be hesitant to quash the criminal case under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, it is noticed that at the time of the alleged offence, the victim was major. The applicant and the victim are husband and wife. They have a girl child and they are living in peace and harmony. In these circumstances, in case, the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties. Therefore, it is a fit case, in which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to do real and substantial justice.

11. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.39 of 2020, 'State vs. Raju Singh', pending before the Court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Udham Singh Nagar, are quashed.

12. Resultantly, the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.39 of 2020, 'State vs. Raju Singh', pending before the Court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO