SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Avtar Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 8 May, 2018

CRM-M-13093-2018 1


Date of Decision:May 08, 2018

Avtar Singh and Others…………………………………………………………..Petitioners


State of Punjab and another…………………………………………………Respondents


Present: Mr.Rohit Samhotra,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Abheypal Singh Gill,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr.Sunny Mangli, Advocate for
Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2



Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 02 dated

17.2.2018 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC’ for

short) registered at Police Station NRI Wing, District Sangrur (Annexure

P1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis

of compromise dated 27.2.2018 (Annexure P2) .

Vide order dated 2.4.2018, a direction was given to the trial

Court to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding

the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties and also to

intimate whether any accused is declared as proclaimed offender.

1 of 4
13-05-2018 08:41:14 :::
CRM-M-13093-2018 2

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a report

on 27.4.2018 (forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge Sangrur on

30.4.2018), after recording the statements of the parties. The trial Court

has submitted that the complainant-Rajbir Kaur and accused- Avtar

Singh, Gurdeep Kaur and Gurtej Singh have appeared along with their

respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statements

recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily,

without any coercion or any undue influence. This fact is not disputed by

the learned State counsel, on instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector

-Varinder Kumar that the petitioners-accused are not declared as

proclaimed offender.

Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present

case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High

Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.

Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon’ble the

Supreme Court of India in “Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another”,

2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances

of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation

of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is

expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an


As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in

Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR

(Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow

the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution

2 of 4
13-05-2018 08:41:15 :::
CRM-M-13093-2018 3

where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of

the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This

power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation

vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and others (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 350 has

held as under:-

“Having carefully considered the singular facts and

circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the

continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused

had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable

arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj

Sharma’s case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered

thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In

concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded

in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts,

continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been

arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to

abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial

would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which

may be of no consequence to any of the parties.”

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. 02 dated

17.2.2018 under Section 406 IPC registered at Police Station NRI Wing,

3 of 4
13-05-2018 08:41:15 :::
CRM-M-13093-2018 4

District Sangrur (Annexure P1) and all the consequential proceedings,

arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed subject to payment of costs in

the sum of ` 3000/- in the Office of District Legal Services Authority,

Sangrur within 8 weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand

recalled automatically without reference to the Court.

May 08, 2018

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable:Yes/No

4 of 4
13-05-2018 08:41:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation