Sukhdev Mandal & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Compounding application (IA/4/2025) has been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound the offences u/s 9, 10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 75 of the J.J. Act along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2476 of 2020, State vs. Sachin Mandal & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/IVth Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

Applicant no.1 (Sukhdev Mandal), applicant no.2 (Baburam Mandal), applicant no.3 (Ranjeeta Mandal), applicant no.4 (Sachin Mandal), applicant no.5 (Sarswati Mandal) and respondent no.3-victim (Smt. Sandhya) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that respondent no.3 has got major and the applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 registered their marriage in the office of the Registrar Marriage and they are blessed with a male child also.

So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/4/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2476 of 2020, State vs. Sachin Mandal & others, pending in the court learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/IVth Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar u/s 9, 10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 75 of the J.J. Act are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.