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 :::