279.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-46714-2017
Date of Decision:11.02.2019

SATVEER SINGH @ ROSHAN AND OTHERS …Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate for
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

****

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL)

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

quashing of FIR No.49 dated 31.05.2016 under Sections 498A, 420, 342,

506, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, District

Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 11.12.2017 had directed the parties

to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 21.12.2017 to get their

statements recorded with regard to the compromise and the learned trial

Court was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise

however, parties could not appear. Again vide order dated 19.01.2018,

1 of 4
17-02-2019 01:22:08 :::
CRM-M-46714-2017 -2-
parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on

29.01.2018 or any date convenient to the Magistrate for recording their

statements.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala and got their statements

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has

submitted report dated 26.02.2018 to the effect that the compromise is

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

coercion or undue influence.

Respondent No.3-complainant, namely, Kuldeep Singh has

made his statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on

21.02.2018. The same is reproduced as under:-

“The present case bearing FIR No.49 dated 31.05.2016
registered with police station Raja Sansi, District Amritsar
rural, under Sections 498-A, 420, 342, 506, 120-B, 148, 149
IPC, has been got registered by me against Satveer Singh @
Roshan S/o Gurmit Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Nishal Singh,
Kulwinder Kaur w/o Gurmeet Singh, Happy @ Jasbir Singh
son of Gurmeet Singh, resident of Adda Amousi Station,
Lucknow, Uttar Pardesh, Maninder Kaur @ Soni w/o Ram Pal
Singh, Ram Pal Singh son of Shabeg Singh, both residents of
village Dhinohari, Dahnori, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and
Gurbhej Singh @ gora son of Raghbir Singh, Pandher Kalan,
Fatehgarh Churian Road, Batala. Now with the intervention of
the respectables of the society, a compromise has been effected
between the petitioner and respondents i.e. complainant party
and the accused party. I am giving this statement today in the
Court without any threat, coercion or undue influence and with
my own free will. It is further submitted that the present case
has been registered only against Satveer Singh @ Roshan S/o

2 of 4
17-02-2019 01:22:08 :::
CRM-M-46714-2017 -3-
Gurmit Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Nishal Singh, Kulwinder
Kaur w/o Gurmeet Singh, Happy @ Jasbir Singh son of
Gurmeet Singh, resident of Adda Amousi Station, Lucknow,
Uttar Pardesh, Maninder Kaur @ Soni w/o Ram Pal Singh,
Ram Pal Singh son of Shehbeg Singh, both the residents of
village Dhinohari, Dahnori, Lucknow, Uttar Pardesh and
Gurbhej Singh @ gora son of Raghbir Singh, Pandher Kalan,
Fatehgarh Churian Road, Batala and apart from them, no
other person has been arrayed as accused in the present case.
No person has been declared as proclaimed offender. I have
brought my Aadhar Card today in the court showing my
identity and copy of the same is Mark B. I have no objection if
the above said FIR be quashed (Original seen and returned).”

Apart from above, a similar statement has been made by

respondent No.2-Gurparsan Kaur whereby she has shown no objection in

case the FIR is quashed.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent

No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise entered 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

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

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

3 of 4
17-02-2019 01:22:08 :::
CRM-M-46714-2017 -4-
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.49 dated

31.05.2016 under Sections 498A, 420, 342, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC

registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure

P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed

qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise effected between the parties

dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), however, that would be subject to

payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- 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.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
February 11, 2019 JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/NoWhether Reportable:Yes/No
Jyoti-IV

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2019 01:22:08 :::