COMMON ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No.39 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Heard Mr. Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the ingredients of Sections 376(2)(n) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that at the instance of elders and well-wishers, the petitioner and the victim (sister of respondent No.2) were married on 27.07.2025 as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and obtained marriage certificate. The petitioner and the victim are living together as husband and wife, and they were blessed with a baby girl on 04.01.2026 and the victim and respondent No.2 does not wish to continue proceedings against the petitioner in view of the subsequent development of their marriage.

4. When this Court raised a query as to whether the parties are entitled to seek recording of a compromise in respect of heinous offences, the learned counsel submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.11980 of 2024 recorded a compromise and quashed the proceedings and relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹(2012) 10 SCC 303, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, Djhandapani v State representing by the Inspector of Police⁴Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2024, Crl.A.No.796 of 2022, XXXX v. State of Kerala and Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka⁵Crl.P.No.4658 of 2024.

5. He also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Crl.A.No.001005 of 2025, dated 28.02.2025

5. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered into a compromise, filed a joint memo and sworn affidavit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 seeking permission to compound the offences and to record the compromise respectively.

6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was performed on 27.07.2025 and duly registered before the competent authority, and they are living together and have been blessed with a baby girl, this Court vide order, dated 22.04.2026, directed the parties i.e., the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee on or before 25.04.2026 for their identification.

7. In compliance of the said order, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report, dated 24.04.2026, stating that the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were duly identified with copies of their Aadhar Cards. It is further stated that the parties have willfully and without any coercion entered into compromise.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the same.

9. In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 are allowed. Consequently,