CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SADHU RAM SINGLA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 23-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 1 S.C.R. 907 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
SADHU RAM SINGLA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 396of2017) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 320, 482 -
Compounding of non-compou11dable offence - FIR and the 
consequential proceedings alleging non-compoundable offences-
cheating and forgery - Quashing of, by the High Court in exercise 
of its jurisdiction uls. 482 011 the basis of the settlement arrived at 
between the complainant and the accused - Held: Encroaching into 
the right of the other organ of the government would tantamoullf 
clear violation of the rule of law which is one of the basic structure 
of the Constitution - Judicial restraint to be observed while quashing 
criminal cases alleging non-compoundable offences on the basis 
of the settlement arrived between the parties. 
Dismissin~ the appeal, the Court 
HELD: .1.1 Encroaching into the right of the other organ 
of the government would tantamount clear violation of the rule of 
law which is one of the basic structure of the Constitution oflndia. 
[J?ara 1:11 1913-E] 
1.2 Having carefully considered the singular facts and 
circumstances of the instant 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, there is no reason to differ with the view 
taken in *Manoj S/wrm<1's case and several decisions of this Court 
delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial 
restraint that it would ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of 
judicial power to direct compounding of a non-compoundable 
offence. 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 
907 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
908 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may 
be of no consequence to any of the parties. It would be proper to 
keep the said point of law open. [Para 15, 16] (913-G-H, 914-A-
C] 
*Mano} Sharma v. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 : 
(2008] 14 SCR 539 - relied on. 
Ku/winder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab Anr. 2007 
(4) CTC 769; Mrs. Shaku111a/a Sawhney v. Mrs. 
Kaushalya Sawhney & Ors. (1980) I SCC 63; State 
of Tamil Nadu v. R. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr. (2016) I 
SCC 376 : [2015] 9 SCR 772; Central Bureau of 
!11vestigatio11 v. A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors. (2009) 
6 SCC 351; Central Bureau of Investigation v. 
Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 : (2015] 10 SCR 
277; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 
SCC 303 : (2012] 8 SCR 753 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (4) CTC 769 
referred to 
Para6 
(1980) 1 sec 63 
referred to 
Para8 
J2015J 9 SCR 772 
referred to 
Para 10 
r2oo~i 6 sec 351 
referred to 
Para 11 
[2015] 10 SCR 277 
referred to 
Para 12 
j2012J 8 SCR 753 
referred to 
Para 13 
[2008] 14 SCR 539 
referred to 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 396 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2011 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. Misc. No. M-2829 of 
2011. 
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG., Raj iv Nanda, B. V. Balramdas, Rajesh 
Ranjan, Ms. Kritika Sachdeva, M. K. Maroria, Arvind Kumar Sharma, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Daya Krishan Sharma, Rohit 
Vats, Ms. Monika Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. 
CBI. v. SADHU RAM SINGLA & ORS. 
The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed assailing the 
judgment and order dated 2"' June, 2011 passed by the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-
2829 of 2011, whereby the High Court while relying upon another 
judgment of the same High Cornt and on the basis of settlement of 
dispute, quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents, being 
FIR No.SIA-2001-E-0006 dated 28.12.2001 under Sections 420 and 471 
oflndian Penal Cpde [in short '!PC'], registered at Police Station, SIU(X)/ 
SPE/CBI, New Delhi and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court 
of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala. 
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Mis. Rom Industries 
Ltd., Mansa Road, Bhatinda (P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.