In non-compoundable cases, criminal proceedings can be quashed based on compromise if it promotes harmony and there is no chance of conviction.

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.7/2024 registered at Police Station- Amayan District Bhind against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(2)(F) of IPC and Sections 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2. I.A.No.11653 of 2024 has been filed jointly by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 - Prosecutrix duly supported by their affidavits.

3. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the factum of Signaturec oNmot pVerorifmiedise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who Signed by: MADHU has recorded statements of respondent No.2/Prosecutrix as well as petitioner and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2/Prosecutrix has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition has been filed for compounding the offence on the basis of compromise.

5. Respondent No.2/Prosecutrix has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as well as verification report submitted by Principal Registrar of this Court.

7. In the cases of Jagdish Channa and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika and Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022 decided on 10.8.2022 in which a criminal case under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner therein was considered for quashment of FIR on the basis of compromise wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the Signature Not Verified dictum in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) Signed by: MADHU

6 SCC 466 held in para 13 and 14 that if there is insufficient evidence and by virtue of compromise there is no chance of conviction and the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship then at primary stage on such compromise, proceedings may be quashed. Para 13 and 14 of Kapil Gupta (supra) are material and thus reproduced for ready reference and convenience: “13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.”

9. In the case of Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (2023 SCC Online HP 1625), the Hon'ble H