IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. Nos. 4610-11 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-34556 of 2008 Date of decision: January 28, 2009 Mrs. Amarjit Kaur and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. Crl. Misc. Nos. 4610-11 of 2009 Copy of the statement (Annexure P3) attached with the Crl. Misc. applications is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Crl. Misc. applications stand disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M- 34556 of 2008 This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the case FIR No. 132 dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2) effected between the parties. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Asha Rani (respondent No.2) who has alleged that her daughter (prosecutrix) whose age is 17 years was taken by one boy of their Mohalla namely Happy (petitioner No.3) son of Mohinderpal on the pretext to marry her. The prosecutrix had been enticed by Happy (petitioner No.3) on 15.5.2008. The complainant had searched for the prosecutrix but she could not find her. The boy namely Happy (petitioner No.3) had Crl. Misc. Nos. 4610-11 of 2009 [2] and Crl. Misc. No. M- 34556 of 2008 also been missing. The complainant was quite sure that her daughter (prosecutrix) had been enticed by Happy (petitioner No.3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the compromise (Annexure P2) that has been entered into between the parties and on the strength of the same, it is submitted that the FIR is liable to be quashed. Strong reliance is placed on the case of Talwinder Singh @ Laddi and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Crl.) 970 to contend that in similar circumstances FIR against the accused in the said case has been quashed on the basis of compromise. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. A perusal of the compromise (Annexure P2) shows that it has been entered into between the petitioners and Asha Rani complainant/ respondent No.2. It has inter alia been agreed in terms of the said compromise that the first party i.e. the petitioners agree to return all the academic documents pertaining to the minor (prosecutrix) along with all other documents to the second party (complainant) within a period of 15 days from the date of the agreement. Besides, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the second party for the loss occurred on account of the incident mentioned in the FIR. A sum of Rs.25,000/- it is recorded has been paid and the balance has been agreed to be paid on certain guaranteed basis. It may, therefore, be noticed that in the compromise (Annexure P2) itself the prosecutrix is accepted to be a minor. In her statement (Annexure P3), which has been taken on record it is stated by the prosecutrix that petitioner No.3 had committed the act of rape on her. In case the prosecutrix or other prosecution witnesses resile from their statements made by them, then they are liable to be confronted during the trial with their previous statements. The offences attributed to the petitioner are not compoundable. No doubt the provisions of Section 320 CrPC Crl. Misc. Nos. 4610-11 of 2009 [3] and Crl. Misc. No. M- 34556 of 2008 does not limit the powers of this Court to quash a criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a compromise, however, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in appropriate cases where question involved is purely of a personal nature, which does not affect the society. The offence of rape and that too in which a minor girl is the victim does indeed affect the society at large to which this Court cannot be insensitive. The case of Talwinder Singh @ Laddi (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is confined to its own facts and circumstances and is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The offence of rape which is said to have been committed in this case is a crime against the society and is not to be compounded. As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 28, 2009 amit