Uttarakhand High Court
C528/2280/2025 on 1 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 2280 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2.
4. The present criminal misc. application is
filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order as
well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. of 69
of 2021, (Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021), under
Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and
Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO
Act, pending in the court of learned Additional
District Judge/FTSC, Haridwar, on the basis of
compromise between the parties.
5. Compounding application is also filed in the
matter wherein it is prayed to compound the
offence between the parties under Sections 363,
366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) and
5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the parties have amicably settled their
dispute and have entered into a compromise.
7. Parties are virtually present before this
Court and are duly identified by their respective
counsels. Parties have also filed their respective
affidavits stating the facts of compromise between
them.
8. Upon interaction, it is stated by respondent
no. 2 that they have amicably resolved their
dispute and she do not want to pursue with the
criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is
further submitted that applicant and respondent
no. 2 have solemnized their marriage after
attaining majority and a child is also borne out of
the wedlock.
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.
Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307, in its paragraph nos.
6, 7, 8 and 9 has held as hereunder:-
“6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is
not merely a wrong against an individual but
against society as a whole. When an offence is
committed, it wounds the collective conscience
of the society and therefore the society, acting
through its elected lawmakers, determines what
would be the punishment for such an offence
and how an offender should be dealt with, to
deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a
manifestation of the sovereign will of the
society. However, the administration of such law
is not divorced from the practical realities.
Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach.
This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of
each case: with firmness and severity wherever
necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It
is also in the best interest of society to bring a
dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw
inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law
aims to ensure not just punishment of the
guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the
social order.
7. With such perspective in mind, we need to
proceed to balance the competing interests of
justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
8. The founding fathers of the Constitution
conferred this Court with the extraordinary
power to do “complete justice” in proper cases.
This constitutional power stands apart from all
other powers and is intended to avoid situations
of injustice being caused by the rigid application
of law.
9. Per the law made by the legislature, the
appellant having been found guilty of a heinous
offence, the proceedings in the present case on
the basis of a compromise between the
appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But
ignoring the cry of the appellant’s wife for
compassion and empathy will not, in our
opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the
most serious offenders of law do receive justice
moderated by compassion from the courts,
albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar
facts and circumstances here, a balanced
approach combining practicality and empathy is
necessary. The appellant and the victim are not
only legally married, they are also in their
family way. While considering the offence
committed by the appellant punishable under
the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the
crime was not the result of lust but love. The
victim of crime herself has expressed her desire
to live a peaceful and stable family life with the
appellant, upon whom she is dependent,
without the appellant carrying the indelible
mark on his forehead of being an offender.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings and
the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt
this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to
the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of
society itself.”
10. Thus, in the case of K. Kirubakaran Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Apex Court by
invoking its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India quashed the proceedings
against the appellant-accused therein, including
his conviction and sentence.
11. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that the
offences sought to be compounded are non-
compoundable.
12. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has
permitted compounding of non-compoundable
offences with the permission of Court.
13. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a
catena of its judgments, has observed that in
cases where because of the compromise arrived
at between the parties, possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings as continuation of the same
would cause great prejudice and injustice to the
accused.
14. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present
compounding application is allowed. The offences
between the parties are permitted to be
compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings
of S.S.T. No. of 69 of 2021, (Case Crime No. 0027
of 2021), under Sections 363, 366-A and
376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) r/w
Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of
learned Additional District Judge/FTSC, Haridwar,
are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and
charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand
quashed.
15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(Alok Mahra J.)
01.04.2026
Ujjwal
