Compounding of non-compoundable POCSO and BNS offences permitted under Section 528 BNSS based on voluntary compromise.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings involving allegations under Sections 137(2) and 70(2) of the BNS, as well as Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The parties reached a voluntary settlement, expressing an intent to marry once the prosecutrix reaches the age of majority.

The Principal Registrar verified the compromise, confirming it was reached without coercion.

The court applied Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

Supreme Court precedents, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, establish that even in non-compoundable cases, proceedings may be quashed to save judicial time and preserve social harmony when a settlement is reached.

The court also emphasized the principle that a "lean compromise" is preferable to protracted litigation.

The court reasoned that since the parties had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the intent to settle their personal lives, continuing the criminal trial would be a "futile exercise".

By perusing the verification report from the Principal Registrar, the court satisfied itself that the settlement was genuine and not the result of threat or inducement.

It determined that the "bonhomie" created by the settlement should be preserved to save the resources of the judiciary and achieve substantial justice, concluding that no fruitful purpose would be served by a trial where a conviction is unlikely due to the victims' cooperation with the accused.

The court clarified that the trial would proceed independently against any remaining co-accused without being influenced by this order. The applications for compounding were formally allowed, and the case was disposed of.