JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The parties to the proceedings of the present C482 application have joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing. They have been identified by Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, who appears for the complainant – respondent no.2. This Court has even interacted with the complainant – respondent no.2, but owing to the fact, that the proceedings which has been initiated at her behest by the registration of an FIR No.446 dated 06.06.2022 were for the offences under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. 2. The parties to the proceedings who are the joined signatory to the C482 application, as well as, to the compounding application, which has been filed in support thereto have submitted that owing to the terms of settlement which has been referred to in the C482 application, the applicant no.1 and the complainant have amicably resolved to settle their disputes and as a consequence thereto a permanent alimony has been settled to be paid and further it has been settled, that the child born out of the matrimony the girl child, which has been born will continue to live with the applicant no.1. Apart from that the parties have also agreed, that all the pending proceedings inter se between them will not be pressed by the respective parties. This Court after interacting with the complainant, is of the view that she has been constrained to enter into a settlement owing to her precarious family conditions which she is facing, because of death of her father. 3. Parting of the child for a mother and agreeing to be handed over to applicant no.1, as per the terms of the settlement, though, it may be permissible on the basis of the settlement which has been arrived at, but this Court feels it apt to that at this stage of considering the compounding application certain conditions are required to be imposed upon the applicant no.1, exclusively for the purposes to safeguard the interest and future of the girl child, which he has assured to maintained by him. 4. 4. As such while closing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.781 of 2022, “State vs. Sarfaraj and Others”, in terms of the settlement which has been filed along with C482 application, as well as, that as referred to in the compounding application which is supported by the respective affidavits filed by the parties to the C482 application and considering the fact that the contents of the compounding application, as well as, the identification of the applicants and the complainant has been identified by the Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, the C482 application would stand allowed. But, this Court while exercising its inherent powers feels it apt that prior to compounding the offence and closing the criminal proceedings certain conditions are required to be imposed upon the applicant no.1 with whom the girl child has been entrusted to be maintained as assured by him. The applicant – Sarfaraj who is present in the proceedings has made a statement and has assured the Court, that for all times to come till the girl attains the age of majority he will take care of the child and will provide best of the qualification within his means and would maintain her and will ensure her safety and wellbeing till her attainment of her age of majority.5. Subject to the aforesaid, the C482 application stands disposed of. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.781 of 2022, State vs. Sarfaraj and Others, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar would stand dropped.