Allahabad High Court

2. It has been stated that first information report was lodged by brother of the prosecutrix on 24.12.2024 at police station Ramala, District Baghpat under Sections 137 (2), 64 (1) of BNSS and 3/4 of POCSO Act alleging that on 24.12.2024 the cousin of the informant who is aged about 17 years has been enticed by the applicant. It is further stated that subsequently the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Sections 180 of BNSS was recorded where she has stated that she is studying in class 8th and on 23.12.2024 at 10 to 11 pm she had left the house out of her own volition along with the applicant and gone to Ghaziabad. It is further stated that the applicant and the prosecutrix have known each other for 4 to 5 months and they liked each other. It is further stated that they had gone to Lucknow where they solemnized their marriage on 26.12.2024. She has also produced a copy of the marriage certificate during the said investigation. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS she has stated her age to be 19 years and again stated that she had gone along with the applicant on her own consent and the applicant has not committed any offence.

3. It is further submitted that the applicant had approached this Court by filing habeas corpus writ petition bearing No.174 of 2025 where ossification report was produced before this Court which indicated that 2 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 the age of the prosecutrix was determined to be between 18 to 19 years. The prosecutrix had also appeared before this Court and expressed her unequivocal and voluntary desire to live with the applicant. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court had allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed the prosecutrix to be released and accompany the applicant. The order of this Court dated 26.5.2025 is being reproduced as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and perused the material available on record.

2. In compliance with the order dated 14.05.2025, the corpus, Smt. Shalu, has been produced before this Court by Sub-Inspector Mayank Pratap Singh (PNO No. 234215368), Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat.

3. Upon examination by the Court, the corpus, Smt. Shalu, has stated that she is aged 18 years. She further affirmed that she has entered into a matrimonial alliance with petitioner no. 1, Sandeep, in accordance with Hindu customs and rites, and has expressed her unequivocal and voluntary desire to reside with her husband.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 03.04.2025, an ossification test was conducted to determine the age of the corpus. As per the report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Baghpat, the age of the corpus has been assessed to be approximately between 18 to 19 years.

5. In view of the voluntary statement of the corpus and the medical opinion regarding her age, Sub-Inspector Mayank Pratap Singh (PNO No. 234215368), Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, is directed to release the corpus forthwith to accompany her husband, petitioner no. 1.

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. "

4.It is further stated that from the aforesaid material all the essential aspects of this matter have already been inquired into by this Court in habeas corpus petition No.174 of 2025 where the prosecutrix had appeared before this Court and denied the allegations as levelled in the first information report lodged on 24.12.2024.

5. It has been submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix have already solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals and 3 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 she appeared before this Court and clearly stated that she wishes to live with the applicant and has further stated that the applicant and the prosecutrix are living together since then as husband and wife.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and 320 of predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society 4 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and

29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 5 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 466,

8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, the charge sheet dated 16.2.2025 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 24.3.2025 and bailable warrants dated 19.7.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of sessions trial No.703 of 2025 arising out of case crime No.352 of 2024 under Sections- 137(2), 64 (1) of BNSS and 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Ramala, District Baghpat pending in the court of ADJ/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baghpat, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed. September 19, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.)

2. It has been stated that first information report was lodged by brother of the prosecutrix on 24.12.2024 at police station Ramala, District Baghpat under Sections 137 (2), 64 (1) of BNSS and 3/4 of POCSO Act alleging that on 24.12.2024 the cousin of the informant who is aged about 17 years has been enticed by the applicant. It is further stated that subsequently the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Sections 180 of BNSS was recorded where she has stated that she is studying in class 8th and on 23.12.2024 at 10 to 11 pm she had left the house out of her own volition along with the applicant and gone to Ghaziabad. It is further stated that the applicant and the prosecutrix have known each other for 4 to 5 months and they liked each other. It is further stated that they had gone to Lucknow where they solemnized their marriage on 26.12.2024. She has also produced a copy of the marriage certificate during the said investigation. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS she has stated her age to be 19 years and again stated that she had gone along with the applicant on her own consent and the applicant has not committed any offence.

3. It is further submitted that the applicant had approached this Court by filing habeas corpus writ petition bearing No.174 of 2025 where ossification report was produced before this Court which indicated that 2 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 the age of the prosecutrix was determined to be between 18 to 19 years. The prosecutrix had also appeared before this Court and expressed her unequivocal and voluntary desire to live with the applicant. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court had allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed the prosecutrix to be released and accompany the applicant. The order of this Court dated 26.5.2025 is being reproduced as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and perused the material available on record.

2. In compliance with the order dated 14.05.2025, the corpus, Smt. Shalu, has been produced before this Court by Sub-Inspector Mayank Pratap Singh (PNO No. 234215368), Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat.

3. Upon examination by the Court, the corpus, Smt. Shalu, has stated that she is aged 18 years. She further affirmed that she has entered into a matrimonial alliance with petitioner no. 1, Sandeep, in accordance with Hindu customs and rites, and has expressed her unequivocal and voluntary desire to reside with her husband.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 03.04.2025, an ossification test was conducted to determine the age of the corpus. As per the report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Baghpat, the age of the corpus has been assessed to be approximately between 18 to 19 years.

5. In view of the voluntary statement of the corpus and the medical opinion regarding her age, Sub-Inspector Mayank Pratap Singh (PNO No. 234215368), Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, is directed to release the corpus forthwith to accompany her husband, petitioner no. 1.

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. "

4.It is further stated that from the aforesaid material all the essential aspects of this matter have already been inquired into by this Court in habeas corpus petition No.174 of 2025 where the prosecutrix had appeared before this Court and denied the allegations as levelled in the first information report lodged on 24.12.2024.

5. It has been submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix have already solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals and 3 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 she appeared before this Court and clearly stated that she wishes to live with the applicant and has further stated that the applicant and the prosecutrix are living together since then as husband and wife.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and 320 of predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society 4 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and

29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 5 NA528 No. 35059 of 2025 466,

8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, the charge sheet dated 16.2.2025 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 24.3.2025 and bailable warrants dated 19.7.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of sessions trial No.703 of 2025 arising out of case crime No.352 of 2024 under Sections- 137(2), 64 (1) of BNSS and 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Ramala, District Baghpat pending in the court of ADJ/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baghpat, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed. September 19, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.)