Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of Harjeet Kaur (since deceased), daughter of Sukhwant Singh s/o Dyal Singh (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner Buta Singh s/o Pargat Singh, around three years prior to the present incident, according to Sikh rites & ceremonies. The complainant claimed that petitioner is a drug addict and truck driver by profession. He used to harass and beat her daughter, when he was short of drugs. Harjeet Kaur used to remain upset and distressed on account of misbehaviour of the petitioner. Even he wanted to sell the household goods to satisfy his lust of drugs. Fed up with the misbehaviour of the petitioner, Harjeet Kaur committed suicide on 28.5.2014 within a period of three years of her marriage.

2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, according to the prosecution that petitioner used to treat Harjeet Kaur with cruelty, intended to sell his household goods, in order to fulfill her lust of drug addiction, compelling and driving her to commit suicide. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the instant case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.50 dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC by the police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran in the manner depicted here-in-above.

3. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, now the petitioner (main accused) has straightway jumped to file the present petition to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of alleged compromise deed dated 14.7.2014 (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) of complainant, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

5. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that although the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is not compoundable, but still, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) deserves to be quashed on the basis of compromise, in view of order dated 18.7.2013, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sabina, J.) in CRM No. M-15438 of 2013 titled as “Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi alias Shonki v. State of Punjab and another” is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, wherein, it was only observed as under :-

“Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.37 dated 03.04.2013 under Sections 306 and 511 IPC, registered at Police Station Tibber, Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.”

6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with regard to quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise is now well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court. The crux of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3025 (SC) : 2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4289] : 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 is that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise only in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any court in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.PC by the High Court. At the same time, it was ruled that before exercising of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity of any offences like murder, rape, da