Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

3. Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, learned counsel for Respondent nos.3 & 4.

4. The present writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on behalf of the Petitioners, Dilkhush S/o Ramnath Singh, Ramnath Singh S/o Chitavan Singh, Jagtaran Devi W/o Ramnath Sahani and Dilip Kumar S/o Ramnath Singh against the Respondents, Nathuni Sahni, who is the complainant and Vibha, who is victim in the matter; the present writ petition comes with the prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.0179 of 2024 dated

25.07.2024 pertaining to offence under Sections 120-B, 363, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners makes a submission that at the time of the incident, the victim was major and she was in relation with the Petitioner No.1 Dilkhush; the marriage of the Petitioner no.1 and Respondent no.4/victim was solemnized and registered the same in the Office of the Registrar Compulsory Registration of Marriages, Dehradun on 01.03.2024; Later on, the Respondent no.4/victim gave birth to a child also. Now, the Respondent no.3/complainant (father of the victim) does not wish to proceed with the matter as he has reconciled the matter with the Petitioners and his daughter.

6. Respondent no. 3/complainant makes a statement that at the time of the incident, the Respondent no.4/victim was major.

7. On a specific query as to why Section 3/4 of POCSO Act has been mentioned in relation to the FIR, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that it was due to the allegation made by the Respondent no.3/complainant (father of the victim) that the Petitioner No.1 Dilkhush had forged the Aadhar Card of her minor daughter and enticed her with false promise of physical relationship, but later on, during the course of investigation, this was found not to be true and hence, the offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act was eliminated meaning thereby that the victim was not minor at the time of incident.

8. The Petitioners have listed in the present writ petition namely Ramnath Singh S/o Chitavan Singh, Jagtaran Devi W/o Ramnath Sahani and Dilip Kumar S/o Ramnath Singh were exonerated, whereas the proceedings were going on during investigation against the Petitioner no.1 Dilkhush, who is present before this Court and Respondents, Nathuni Sahni, who is the complainant and Vibha, who is victim in the matter are also present before this Court, who are identified by their respective counsel.

9. The Compounding Application (IA No.01 of 2025) is also annexed with the present writ petition that is supported with the affidavits of the parties and the said application is being endorsed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent nos.3 & 3, Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, Advocate respectively.

10. After interacting with the parties especially with Respondent no.4/victim, who states her age to be 21 years and carrying a child and also states that she got married with Petitioner no.1 Dilkhush and at the time of the marriage, she was 19 years old.

11. Considering the fact that the issue of minority was deleted by the concerned Investigating Officer, whereby the victim’s age was under consideration and after having interacted with the parties, this Court is satisfied with the grounds to be found sufficient for allowing the compounding application as now both the family members have agreed for the present relationship as husband and wife between the Petitioner no.1 and Respondent no.4 as such both the parties want to settle the present dispute and want to get the present offence compoundable on their sweet will and not under any pressure; the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties and now the Respondent no. 3 does not want to prosecute the Petitioner no.1 and also does not want to proceed with the matter against the Petitioner no.1, therefore, the proceedings and other consequential order, if any, arising out of the F.I.R. in question may be quashed.

12. The learned State counsel poses his formal objection in this regard.

13. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the entire proceedings against qua the Petitioners are hereby quashed.

15. In view of the above, the compounding application is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.0179 of 2024 dated 25.07.2024 pertaining to offence under Sections 120-B, 363, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed.

16. The present writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, thus, disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Akash AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef7 3518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c 891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH (Ashish Naithani, J.)

16.10.2025