Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Majeed Bhat And Ors vs Ut Through Police Station Lalpora And … on 3 March, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No. 777/2024 CrLM No. 1841/2024
Abdul Majeed Bhat and Ors. ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Bakhat Parvaiz, Advocate.
Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate.
Vs.
UT through Police Station Lalpora and Anr. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
03.03.2025
(ORAL)
1. In the instant petition, the petitioners herein have invoked the inherent
power of this Court enshrined under Section 528 BNSS seeking
quashment of FIR No. 18/2022 registered with Police Station Lalpora
Kupwara for commission of offence under Sections 341, 427, 336
IPC.
2. According to counsel for the petitioners a compromise has been
arrived at between the petitioners and respondent 2 herein outside the
Court and in the light of the said compromise, the continuation of the
criminal case arising out of the impugned FIR, as such, is sought to be
quashed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner thus, would pray for disposal of the instant
petition upon quashment of impugned FIR owing to the compromise
arrived at between the petitioners and respondent 2 herein.
4. Private respondent 2 present in person would admit that a compromise
has been arrived at with the petitioners herein qua the quashment of
the FIR in question and would as such, seek disposal of the instant
petition.
5. Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG, vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG,
present appearing on behalf of respondent 1 herein, in principle is also
1
not averse to the disposal of the petition however, in accordance with
the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The moot point for consideration of this Court in the instant petition,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case would be, as
to whether impugned FIR could be quashed in the instant petition in
exercise of inherent powers enshrined under Section 482 Cr.PC. Law
in this regard is settled by the Apex Court in case titled as ‘Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and Another‘ reported in 2012 (10) SCC
303, wherein at paragraph 61 following has been held: –
“61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized
thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled
the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and
the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would
put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding of continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end2
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding”.
And the Apex Court in case titled as ‘Parbatbhai Aahir Alias
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Another‘ reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641, has also held at paragraph 16,
as under:-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the
subject, may be summarized in the following propositions:
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the
ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognizes and preserves powers which in herein the High
Court;
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and
the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power
to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable.
16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice
or
(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information
Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or
offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately
be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have
settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private
in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of
a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the
exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may inappropriate situations fall for
quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
3
16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions
16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial
and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private
disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system
will weigh in the balance.”
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law and
having regard to the facts of the present case as well as the fact that
the petitioners as also respondent 2 have entered into a compromise
qua the matter which had resulted into registration of FIR in question,
as such, under these circumstances the possibility of conviction of
petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
case would rather put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme
injustice besides would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice
as the same otherwise would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. Having regard to above, it would be appropriate and in the interest of
justice to quash FIR No. 18/2022 registered with Police Station
Lalpora Kupwara and proceedings arising out thereof pending before
the trial court.
9. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 18/2022
registered with Police Station Lalpora Kupwara for commission of
offence under Sections 341, 427, 336 IPC including the proceedings
arising out thereof pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class Sogam Kupwara in case titled as “UT of J&K through PS
Lalpora Kupwara Vs. Abdul Majeed Bhat and Ors”, are quashed.
10. Disposed of.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
03.03.2025
Ishaq
4
[ad_1]
Source link