SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Davinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 January, 2019


Date of decision:22.01.2019.





Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vikram Singh Kang, Advocate, for
for respondent No.2.


Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of F.I.R. No.177 dated 29.10.2014 registered under Sections

498A/406 IPC at Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District

Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

on the basis of compromise dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 04.12.2018 had directed the parties

to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements

recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the

genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala and got their statements

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has
1 of 3
10-02-2019 04:31:11 :::
CRM-M-53448-2018 -2-

submitted report dated 17.12.2018 to the effect that the compromise is

genuine and has been effected between the parties voluntarily, without any

undue influence, coercion or threat.

Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Ranjana made her

statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on

10.12.2018. The same is reproduced as under:-

“Stated that the present case having FIR No.177 dated
29.10.2014, under Sections 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station City, Batala, Police District,
Batala, District Gurdaspur was registered against the
accused/petitioner Davinder Singh son of Mewa Singh, resident
of Village Kaler Khurd, P.S. Sekhwan, District Gurdaspur on
my statement. Now I have compromised the matter with
accused (petitioner) with the intervention of the respectables. I
have no objection, if the present FIR may be quashed qua the
above-said accused. I have given my statement with my free will
and without any coercion and any pressure. No any other
litigation/proceeding is pending between me and accused
persons in any court of law. I have not been declared
proclaimed person/offender by any court of law.”

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent

No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to

continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others-2014 (4) RCR (Criminal)

206 has held that the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature,

or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered

into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of
2 of 3
10-02-2019 04:31:12 :::
CRM-M-53448-2018 -3-

conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section

482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of

Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others

(2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in the light of Gold Quest International Private

Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.177 dated

29.10.2014 registered under Sections 498A/406 IPC at Police Station City

Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on

the basis of compromise dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-2), however, that

would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the

Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical

Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, within 15 days from today.

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3
10-02-2019 04:31:12 :::

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