Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Held
The Court held that the offence under Section 379 of the IPC is compoundable. Considering the petty nature of the offence, the small amount involved (less than Rs. 5000/-), and the petitioner's willingness to deposit the assessed value of the alleged stolen articles, the petition was allowed. The reasoning was that compounding the offence would bring finality to the proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can quash FIRs for compoundable offences involving minor amounts, provided the petitioner deposits the assessed value of the stolen goods. The operative direction was that the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom would be quashed upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 4698/- with the respondent-PSPCL within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Facts
The petitioner, Sukhdev Singh, filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 379 of the IPC for alleged theft of conductor from an electricity pole. The FIR was lodged by the respondent, PSPCL. The petitioner contended that a civil suit was pending regarding the installation of the pole and that he had filed an application for its removal. He also stated that the pole had already been removed. To resolve the matter, the petitioner offered to pay the price of the conductor. The respondent PSPCL, in its reply, assessed the value of the conductor and other articles, including GST, at Rs. 4698/- and admitted that the offence under Section 379 IPC is compoundable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the FIR registered under Section 379 of the IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, should be quashed. This issue turns on the provisions of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that the offence is of a petty nature, the amount involved is small, and the offence is compoundable. He also highlighted the pendency of a civil suit and his prior application for the removal of the pole, suggesting no motive for theft. The revenue (State/PSPCL) did not contest the compoundable nature of the offence and agreed to the assessment of the value of the stolen articles.
Sections Cited
Section 379, Section 320
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 247
CRM-M-27946-2021
Date of decision: 11.11.2025
SUKHDEV SINGH @ SUKHA
......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Savi Nagpal, Asst. A.G. Punjab.
None for respondent No.2. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for seeking quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 13.05.2021, registered under Section 379 of the IPC at Police Station Sekhwan, District Gurdaspur alongwith with all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the above said FIR had been got registered by the respondent-PSPCL alleging theft of the conductor that had been installed on a pole affixed in the field of the petitioner. It was alleged that the said electricity pole had been VISHAL SHARMA 2025.11.21 15:15 I attest to the a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.