Avtar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 11.01.2024(P-2), effected between the parties.

¶17

DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-

¶18

FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station
324	18.09.2020	307, 34, 323, 325 and	Jandiala,
		120-B IPC	Amritsar Rural,
			District Amritsar

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1-Avtar Singh is the husband of respondent No.3-Sukhraj Kaur and the present proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between them. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties, a petition for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of

¶20

RASHMI 2026.07.17 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-8751-2024(O&M) 2

¶22

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3, has already been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024.

¶23

Learned counsel further submits that two other criminal cases arising out of the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 have alsoy been quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel has placed on record today copies of the orders dated 22.04.2024 and 09.09.2024, along with the decree of divorce dated 20.08.2024. Same are taken on record.

¶24

It is submitted that FIR No.97 dated 14.12.2017 , registered under Sections 494, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Tarsika, District Amritsar Rural, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, was quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise vide order dated 22.04.2024 passed in CRM-M-8705-2024.

¶25

It is further submitted that another FIR No.146 dated 28.06.2007 , registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, was also quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed in CRM-M-8785-2024.

¶26

4. Vide order dated 04.03.2025, parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements in order to ascertain the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise arrived at between them.

¶27

RASHMI 2026.07.17 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-8751-2024(O&M) 3

¶29

In compliance with the aforesaid order, a report dated 22.04.2025 has been received from the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. As per said report, statements of the parties have been recorded; however, respondent No.2-Gagandeep Kaur, who is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of respondent No.3-Sukhraj Kaur, did not appear before the learned Court below and did not sign the compromise.

¶30

This Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in the background of the allegations contained in the FIR and the nature of dispute between the parties. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that the grievance in question essentially arose out of the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3. The role attributed to respondent No.2 is only that of providing information to the police authorities, on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered.

¶31

Respondent No.2 has neither claimed to be an injured person nor has any specific injury been attributed to her. It is also noticed that the scooter involved in the alleged occurrence was owned by respondent No.3. Therefore, merely because respondent No.2 did not appear before the learned Trial Court for recording her statement regarding the compromise, the same cannot be treated as an impediment in considering the present petition, particularly when she has no independent grievance or personal interest surviving in the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3.

¶32

RASHMI 2026.07.17 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-8751-2024(O&M) 4

¶34

This Court further noticed that the other criminal proceedings arising out of the same matrimonial dispute have already been quashed on the basis of compromise and the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 has also been dissolved by a decree of mutual consent.

¶35

In these circumstances, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose, this Court is of the considered view that the present FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.

¶36

Accordingly, FIR No.324 dated 18.09.2020, registered under Sections 307, 34, 323, 325 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶37

Needless to say, the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the learned Trial Court.

¶38

Petition stands disposed of.

¶39

16.07.2026 (SANJAY VASHISTH) Rashmi JUDGE

¶40

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES /NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶41

RASHMI 2026.07.17 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Avtar Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Alias Nobal Vs State of Punjab

Gudiya Vs State of Punjab and Others

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Satinder Pal Singh Vs Ashwani Kumar Dhir