IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.262 CRM-M-39050 of 2018
DECIDED ON: March 11, 2019
PARDEEP KUMAR @ DEEPA
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
…RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Karan Padam, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.273, dated
06.11.2016, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana,
under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offices Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act’).
According to the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner
sodomized Amrinder Singh aged about 09 years old who is residing in the
neighbourhood of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is still
in progress and during the pendency thereof, the parties have entered into a
compromise dated 08.05.2018. Thus, the FIR and all consequential
proceedings may be quashed.
1 of 2
17-03-2019 18:57:03 :::
CRM-M-39050 of 2018 –2–
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer on the ground that the
petitioner has committed a heinous offence. A minor is involved in this
case and the petitioner has violated the trust that is normally reposed in a
person residing in the neighbourhood. The victim has supported the case of
the prosecution in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The
trial is nearing completion as out of a total of 09 PWS, 06 have already been
examined. Thus, according to him, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
It is true that a compromise has been reached during the
pendency of the trial. However, it is to be noted, that the petitioner himself
is not a party to the compromise. His father has entered into the
compromise on his behalf. Thus, the same cannot be held to be binding
upon the petitioner. Further, according to the terms of the compromise, the
petitioner is required to go away from the locality and never to visit the
same again. It appears that the complainant has been pressurized to reach a
settlement and such a settlement cannot be relied upon for quashing.
Moreover, the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and such an
offence cannot be treated to be a personal wrong which may be
compounded by the victim or his guardian. Under the circumstances, I do
not see any good ground for quashing of the FIR.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
March 11, 2019 (SUDHIR MITTAL)
Ankur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
17-03-2019 18:57:04 :::
