The court has the power to quash FIRs for serious crimes only if there exists a remote possibility of conviction and fairness to justice requires such action.

1. The present petition is filed under S.482 CrPC for quashing of FIR bearing no. 0843/2020 dated 21.12.2020 registered under S.376 / S.506 / S.34 IPC & S.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (POCSO Act) at P.S. Samaipur Badli along with consequential judicial proceedings.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer Insp. Naveen, P. S. Samaipur Badli accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 / State. The respondent no. 2 / prosecutrix is present in person along with counsel and accepts notice.

4. The present FIR bearing no. 0843/2020 under S.376 / S.506 / S.34 IPC & S.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (POCSO Act) at P. S. Samaipur Badli was got registered at the instance of respondent no. 2. It is reflecting that the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 after liking each other had developed intimacy. The respondent no. 2 came to know about her pregnancy with petitioner no. 1 and subsequently delivered a child. The respondent no. 2 was stated to be a minor at the time of registration of FIR on 21.12.2020. The statements of the respondent no. 2 were recorded under S.161 and S.164 CrPC wherein the respondent no. 2 primarily stated that she had a relationship with the petitioner no. 1 out of her own free will and subsequently came to know about her pregnancy with the petitioner no. 1 and thereafter they got married with each other. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge - sheet was filed and the trial is stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, ASJ, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

5. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 were known to each other and developed intimacy. The respondent no. 2 got pregnant and has become the mother of the one child. The petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 got married with each other after birth of the child. The petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 are living together and have become parents of one child. The counsel for the petitioners prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR bearing no. 0843/2020 be quashed.

6. The respondent no. 2 stated that she is leading a happy matrimonial life with petitioner no. 1 and has already settled in her matrimonial life as such she does not wish to pursue with the consequential judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0843/2020.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 / State stated that although the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 got married with each other but the offences as complained are non - compoundable.

8. The extraordinary power under S.482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

9. The Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana , (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and S.320 of CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under S.482 of CrPC. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter - changeable in law. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu v. Radhika , (2011) 10 SCC 705 observed that simply because an offence is not compoundable under S.320 of CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under S.482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. The Supreme Court regarding