IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-24378 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Vinay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and ors … Respondents Present: Mr Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR 173 dated 25.8.2009 (P1) registered at PS Chandimandir, District Panchkula, for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of the mother of the prosecutrix against the petitioner. It is alleged by the complainant that on 24.8.2009, her daughter (prosecutrix) was not feeling well and she was left alone in the house. At about 10.30 a.m., the complainant received a telephone call in her school from the landlord namely Goldi that the daughter of the complainant had come to him and was weeping. The complainant reached home immediately and she found that her daughter was weeping in the street. She took her inside and enquired as to what was the matter. She told the complainant that Vinay Kumar (petitioner) who lives near their house had called her inside his room on the pretext of serving tea to her and forcibly committed a wrong act with her and told her that she should not disclose this to anyone otherwise he Cr Misc M- 24378 of 2010 2 would murder her. In the evening, the husband of the complainant came home and the entire incident was narrated to him. He verified all the facts. At night, the daughter of the prosecutrix was not feeling well and they could not go to the Police Station for reporting the matter. Thereafter, on 25.8.2009, the complainant along with her husband and daughter (prosecutrix) went to Police Station and got recorded the report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR as the matter has been compromised on 8.8.2010 which compromise has been placed on record (at page 13 of the petition). The said compromise has been signed by the parents of the prosecutrix and by the father of the petitioner. It is alleged that with the intervention of friends, relatives, well-wishers and respectables of the locality, the parties have entered into a compromise in this case and all the disputes and differences between them have been resolved completely. The parties now have no grouse against each other and would live peacefully in future. It is also stated that Vinay Kumar – accused and his parents have agreed to get the prosecutrix married to him. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the charges in the case were framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula on 4.1.2010 (P4). Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses have also been recorded. The statement (P5) of Dr Purnima, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, has been recorded. Besides, the statement (P6) of the complainant, Sushma Rani, has been recorded as PW9. She was declared hostile. The prosecutrix is admittedly a minor. Therefore, at this stage, in this case where trial is going on and the prosecutrix is also a minor, it would be inexpedient to quash the proceedings. It is well known that ordinarily criminal proceedings which Cr Misc M- 24378 of 2010 3 are instituted against an accused, are to be tried and taken to its logical conclusion and the High Court is generally reluctant to interfere with the proceedings at an inter-locutary stage. Therefore, when the trial Court is seized of the matter and the trial in the case is going on, it would be just and expedient that the trial in the case is completed rather than interject into the matter at this stage and terminate the proceedings by quashing the FIR. This is more so for the reason that the prosecutrix is a minor and was 13-14 years of age at the time of the incident. It is normally offences which are personal in nature that are compounded in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The offence of rape is a crime against the society and cannot be said to be personal in nature. The FIRs are normally not to be quashed which are compromised with the minors. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 23.11.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge