Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.82 of 2019, dated 21.12.2019, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered with Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged on the basis of information furnished by Smt. Sunita Thakur, r/o Village Bandli, Shillai, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, who has been working as ASHA worker in the village of respondent No.4/victim-prosecutrix for the last 4-5 months, alleging therein that when she inquired about age of the victim-prosecutrix, she disclosed her age to be 18 years, however subsequently her age was revealed as 16 years. Since victim-prosecutrix was pregnant, she inquired from the petitioner and found that petitioner Dalip Singh had been making physical relations with her. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against the petitioner.

3. Though after completion of investigation, police has already presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have compromised the matter inter-se them. Since petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage with the petitioner way back in the year 2019 and out of their wedlock, one child, who is now six years old, has also been born and victim-prosecutrix is again pregnant by nine months, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

4. Though vide order dated 19.5.2026, this Court had called upon the respondent-State to file status report and verify the factum of compromise, but fact remains that factum of compromise has not been ascertained. On the other hand, victim-prosecutrix-respondent No.4 has come present along with her husband i.e. petitioner and is being represented by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. Respondent No.4-victim-prosecutrix, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding because she of her own volition joined the company of the petitioner. She states that she has solemnized marriage with petitioner in March 2019 and out of the wedlock, one child, who is six years old, has also been born. She further states that she is in advance stage of pregnancy coupled with the fact that she is living happy married life with the petitioner, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are quashed and set-aside and accused is acquitted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures on the same. Her statement is taken on record.

5. Having perused the aforesaid statement made by respondent No.4 i.e. Victim-prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though parties have compromised the matter with each other, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that alleged offence was committed by the petitioner named in the FIR while respondent No.4 was minor, however, he was unable to dispute that chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant.

6. True it is that power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS) is required to be exercised by the court sparingly and very cautiously. Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Pun