JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. (Oral)-- This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 78/2003 registered under Sections 354/324/506, IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar. 2. The petitioner No.2 is the complainant and FIR is lodged by her against the petitioner No.1. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was working with the petitioner No. I as Counsellor. On 14.2.2003, the date she lodged the FIR, when she was in the office, the petitioner No. 1 at 1.00 p.m. took her to the two rooms on the backside where he wanted to start a boutique. The alleged incident which took place is narrated in the FIR in the following manner: "He called me alone and tried to shut the door. When I resented then he shut the door and started misbehaving with me and told me that Navjot you have not behaved properly with me and given him pain. I told him that he should not talk to small servants but enquire from me. On this he started abusing me. I told him to control his tongue. Thereafter he got up from his seat and put his hand on my breast and further holding me from my waist he pulled me towards him and slapped me 3-4 times. When I tried to pull myself, he pushed me speedily; I fell down on shelf and got up. He pushed me second time and I fell down and the shelf broken down and fell on my hands. I got hurt on both my hands and when I shouted/screamed, the girls and boys from the adjoining rooms collected. I told that I will call the police. On this Mr. Kalsi told me that I can do what I want to, the entire police is in his pocket. My brother is on the post of Commissioner. On this one Gaurav Sharma and Vikas Sharma got frightened by seeing the blood coming out from my hand, took me to Khetrapal Nursing Home on rickshaw. I am getting myself treated here. I was waiting for my mother so that I can tell her whatever there is in my heart and tell her that I have been treated badly. Thereafter my mother talked to doctor and on the same time police was called. I told my mother the entire thing, he has put evil eye on me. I cannot excuse this man. I was waiting for my mother so that I can tell her whatever there is in my heart and tell her that I have been treated badly. Thereafter my mother talked to doctor and on the same time police was called. I told my mother the entire thing, he has put evil eye on me. I cannot excuse this man. He has hurt me and has threatened that me and my family would not be spared. Legal action be taken against him. I dont know the quantum of hurt I have received as I am still under treatment. Please help me." 3. The matter was investigated into and charge-sheet was filed. Arguments were heard and vide order dated 31.5.2004 charge is framed against the petitioner No.1. The matter is at the stage of evidence. 4. As per the averments made in this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 22.9.2006. The operative portion of this compromise reads as under: "WHEREAS now with the intervention of family friends and elders of both the parties, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. WHEREAS the first party has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of medical/legal expenses and remaining dues of salary of the complainant/second party. In lieu of this the second party has agreed to withdraw her aforesaid complaint against the first party by moving an appropriate application under Section 320, Cr.P.C. before the Honble Court. After the execution of this agreement and withdrawal of the case there remains no dispute between the parties and the parties have settled all their claims, grievances, etc. against each other." 5. The perusal of the FIR extracted above would show that very serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner No.1 which are not only confined to harming the petitioner No.2 physically but, if correct, would tantamount to outraging her modesty as well. It may further be noted that while lodging this FIR, she specifically stated that she could not excuse this man, i. e. the petitioner No.1. Having regard to these allegations and the annoyance shown by the complainant at the time of lodging the FIR, I thought it proper to probe further into the matter to find out the reason which persuaded the complainant/petitioner No.2 to settle the matter. 6. Having regard to these allegations and the annoyance shown by the complainant at the time of lodging the FIR, I thought it proper to probe further into the matter to find out the reason which persuaded the complainant/petitioner No.2 to settle the matter. 6. On putting questions to the petitioner No.2, it was revealed that forced by the circumstances, she had entered into the compromise. It is not necessary to state those circumstances since the case is still at the stage of trial. However, one reason, which can be disclosed, that statedly compelled her to enter into the MOU was delay in the disposal of the case. She stated that the incident is of February 2003 and more than 3 1/2 years have passed but even her evidence has not been recorded so far, this may lead to many complications insofar as her personal life is concerned (not enumerated here as it may harm her interest). 7. Petitioner No.1 is charged with the offence which is not compoundable. Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in the Column No.2 of the said table. Further, Sub-section (2) provides that offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. No doubt, even in respect of non-compoundable offences the High Court can exercise the power and quash the criminal proceedings if for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of those proceedings become necessary (Refer B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, II (2003) SLT 689=ll (2003) CCR 57 (SC)=I (2003) DMC 524 (SC)= AIR 2003 SC 1386 }. However, while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, Cr.P.C., it is for this Court to take into consideration any special features, which appear in a particular case, to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. While examining the matter from this angle, the Court has to keep in mind that a crime is essentially a wrong against the society. The compounding of offences has the effect of acquittal, which certainly cannot be maintained for serious offences, unless there are special features which outweigh the seriousness of the offence and the Court feels that interest of justice rather demands that prosecution should not continue. 8. The compounding of offences has the effect of acquittal, which certainly cannot be maintained for serious offences, unless there are special features which outweigh the seriousness of the offence and the Court feels that interest of justice rather demands that prosecution should not continue. 8. In the present case, the accusations against the petitioner No.1 are of serious nature. It is unfortunate that the petitioner No.2, who is allegedly a victim and otherwise wants to take the case to its logical conclusion, is forced by the aforesaid circumstance(s) to enter into compromise and agreed not to proceed further in the FIR. It was, thus, in any case, not a case where compromise is the result of free consent of the complainant. On my pertinent query that if the trial is expedited, would she still pursue this joint petition, she immediately responded by saying that in that eventuality, she would like to continue the proceedings. 9. It is unfortunate that because of the delay in disposal of such cases, sometimes the victims of crime are forced to take such steps. No doubt, the Courts are overburdened with the work. The cases pending before a particular Court would be more than a Court has the capacity to handle. Therefore, there is a need to have more Judges and this problem has been raised on a number of occasions and even the Law Commission of India has voiced this concern. However, even when the Courts are overburdened, requisite steps are to be taken to ensure speedy trial. Court Management is one such step which assumes importance. The Court needs to be sensitive to those matters which need urgent attention. Such matters would include the matrimonial cases, proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance filed by the destitute wife or children, etc., cases of disabled persons, etc. Even the trial Courts are required to imbibe the constitutional values of social justice and equality. Trial Courts should also be seen as the "protectors of human rights". That is not the domain of superior Courts alone, inasmuch as there are human rights norms in many existing provisions of law which a trial judge is required to read and implement. It is more so in the application of criminal laws. A requisite balance has to be maintained between the rights of the accused as well as victims. Aim is to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is more so in the application of criminal laws. A requisite balance has to be maintained between the rights of the accused as well as victims. Aim is to prevent miscarriage of justice. In this context, it is not only the ultimate decision, but decision making process which assumes importance as well. How we arrive at the decision and how we treat those who come before us are as important as the decision itself. If delay in a pat1icular case, like the present one, is forcing the prosecutrix not to go ahead with the matter, there will not be any adjudication on merits and justice itself would be the casualty in the process. 10. In the present case, the complainant is a young girl who was 24 years of age at the time of lodging the complaint. Charge was framed on 31.5.2004. More than two years have passed since then but the matter is still hanging fire and is at the stage of evidence. The complainant has not even been examined so far. 11. The case is fixed before the trial Court on 4.11.2006 for prosecution evidence. The evidence of the complainant shall be recorded on that date and she shall be cross-examined by the Counsel for the accused as well on the same date. The trial Court shall not give any further date for this purpose and conclude the evidence of the complainant positively on that date. In case the cross-examination remains inconclusive, that shall continue on day-to-day basis till it is concluded. The trial Court shall also endeavour to conclude the trial and decide the case within four months from the said date. It goes without saying that the ultimate decision would be on the basis of evidence that surfaces and is brought on record, without being influenced by the observations which are made only in the context of need for speedy trial. 12. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made in the FIR and the factual matrix noted above, I am of the opinion that it is not a case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 13. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Order shall be sent to the trial Court for compliance. Petition dismissed.