Introduction:

In the case titled XXX v. State of Punjab and Another [CRM-M-25919-2025], the Punjab & Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, addressed a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No.225 dated 25.10.2023, registered under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petition was based on a compromise between the parties involved. The incident in question occurred during a public Dussehra program, where a group of 8-10 young men, including the petitioners, allegedly attempted to outrage the modesty of a woman (respondent No.2) and assaulted her husband when he intervened.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioners’ Perspective:

The counsel for the petitioners argued that a compromise had been reached between the parties after the FIR was registered. They emphasized that the petitioners were young individuals aged between 21 and 25 years and that the incident was a result of youthful indiscretion. They contended that since the matter had been amicably resolved, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only hinder the prospects of the young petitioners.

Respondent’s Perspective:

The State counsel opposed the petition, highlighting the gravity of the offence. It was argued that the incident took place in a public setting during a cultural event, thereby affecting not just the individuals involved but the public at large. The assault on the complainant’s husband, who was trying to protect his wife, further aggravated the seriousness of the offence. The State contended that such offences could not be treated as private disputes and thus should not be quashed merely based on a compromise.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the arguments, Justice Puri held that offences under Section 354 IPC, which pertain to outraging the modesty of a woman, are serious in nature and impact society as a whole. The Court emphasised that the incident occurred in a public place during a significant cultural event, thereby affecting public order and decency. It was noted that while the punishment under Section 354 IPC ranges from one to five years, the nature of the offence categorises it as serious, irrespective of the quantum of punishment.

The Court further observed that the power to quash an FIR based on a compromise is discretionary and should be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving serious offences. It was reiterated that offences which have a societal impact cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a settlement. The Court concluded that allowing such compromises in serious offences would set a dangerous precedent and could lead to the erosion of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, with the Court affirming the need to uphold the rule of law and societal interest over individual settlements in cases of serious offences.