SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 January, 2019


Date of Decision:18.01.2019

Sandeep Singh and another …Petitioners


State of Punjab and another …Respondents


Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

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

Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for respondent No.2.


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

quashing of FIR No.10 dated 02.07.2015 registered under Section 406/498A

IPC at Police Station NRI, Jalandhar Rural, District Jalandhar on the basis

of compromise. Challenge has also been laid to order dated 12.02.2016

(Annexure P-4) whereby petitioner No.1 has been declared as proclaimed


Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that presently

both the petitioner No.1-Sandeep Singh and respondent No.2-Harvinder

Kaur (complainant) are not residing in India and are settled in Australia.

They have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) for dissolution of their marriage through

their respective attorneys and vide judgement dated 11.09.2018, learned

Additional District Judge, Jalandhar had passed a decree of divorce under

Section 13-B of the Act. He further states that the matter has been

compromised between the parties on 18.12.2017 and it is on the basis of

1 of 4
16-02-2019 23:27:59 :::
CRM-M-3655-2018 -2-
said compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR.

Vide order dated 21.11.2018, this Court had directed the parties

to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 28.11.2018 or any other

date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements

recorded regarding genuineness of the compromise. After recording their

statements to send the report regarding the genuineness of compromise and

also to intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the


Learned counsel for the petitioners states that so far as the PO

proceedings initiated against petitioner No.1 are concerned, on the date on

which the order dated 12.02.2016 declaring him PO was passed, he was not

in India and was not served in the case. Therefore, he could not appear.

However, since the matter has been compromised and decree of divorce has

been granted to the parties through their respective Power of Attorneys, the

order dated 12.02.2016 may be set aside, particularly when petitioner No.1

was not served in the case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 states

that the matter has been compromised between the parties and accordingly

respondent No.2 through her Attorney-Surjit Kaur has made a statement as

regard to compromise so entered between the parties. He further states that

she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed on the basis of


I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present petition seeking quashing of FIR is based on

compromise between the parties. The parties have got their statements

2 of 4
16-02-2019 23:28:00 :::
CRM-M-3655-2018 -3-

recorded, whereas petitioner accused has appeared through his father who

has been given Power of Attorney by his son Sandeep Singh and respondent

No.2-complainant has appeared before the trial Court through her mother

Surjit Kaur in her capacity as an attorney. The dispute between the parties

is regarding entrustment of property/demand of dowry and now

compromise has been arrived at between them. Moreover, the relation

between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant has also

culminated into separation when a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of

the Act has been passed on 11.09.2018. The statement of respondent No.2-

complainant made through her Attorney Surjit Kaur reads as under:

“Stated that criminal case vide FIR No.10 dated 02.07.2015
was registered under Section 406, 498-A IPC, PS NRI,
Jalandhar against Sandeep Singh. Now, with the intervention
of respectables, the matter in dispute has been compromised
between me and the accused namely Sandeep Singh. The
compromise dated 18.10.2017 has been effected with my free
will, sound disposing mind without any pressure and without
any coercion and copy of the same is Mark A and original of
the same is placed before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court. Statement regarding receiving payment in the Hon’ble
Court of Sh.Shatin Goyal, Ld. ASJ, Jalandhar is Mark B. I have
not been declared proclaimed person/offender in any case by
any competent court of law. The copy of power of attorney in
favour of Surjit Kaur is Ex. C1. I produce the copy of my
Identity proof i.e. passport Ex.C2. I have no objection if the
present FIR be quashed on account of compromise.”

Once the matter has been resolved between the parties, this

Court finds that the continuation of PO proceedings would further delay the

proceeding. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order dated 12.02.2016

3 of 4
16-02-2019 23:28:00 :::
CRM-M-3655-2018 -4-

whereby petitioner No.1 was declared as proclaimed offender is hereby

quashed, as statedly during the relevant period, he was not in India.

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

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

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

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 FIR No.10 dated

02.07.2015 registered under Section 406/498A IPC at Police Station NRI,

Jalandhar Rural, District Jalandhar is quashed qua the petitioners, however,

that would be subject to payment of costs of `30,000/- 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.

January 18, 2019 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
16-02-2019 23:28:00 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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