Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abhi Singh vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 4 July, 2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
Sr. No. 01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM
Bail No.
App.3015/2025 in
No.226/2024
Mac
c/w App No. 177/2024
CRM (M) No. 723/2024
CrlM No. 1470/2024
Abhi Singh .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. P.D Singh, Dy.AG for R- 1 to 3
Mr. Ashray Anand, Advocate vice
Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate for R- 4
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
04.07.2025
CRM(M) No. 723/2024
01. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟ for
short), the petitioner has sought the quashment of the FIR bearing
No. 0174/2024 dated 09.09.2024 of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu that
came to be registered on the complaint of respondent no.4/complainant against
the petitioner, on the grounds mentioned in this petition.
02. The petitioner/accused and the respondent no.4/complainant on some
previous dates submitted before the Court that they have compromised the
dispute that had led to the registration of the case FIR sought to be quashed
through the medium of the instant petition. They have now filed a formal
application bearing CrlM No.1149/2025 dated 04.07.2025 in the Registry with
2 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
the prayer that compromise be taken on record and as a consequence, the FIR be
quashed.
03. The petitioner/accused and the respondent no.4/complainant are present in
person. They have been identified by their respective identifying witnesses
namely, Kulvinder Singh and Mohd. Saleem Sheikh. They submit before the
Court that they have compromised the matter between them and have been now
living as husband and wife, and a child has also begotten out of their wedlock.
The compromise entered into between the parties has been gone through.
04. Mr. P.D Singh, learned Dy.AG representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3
submitted that in the light of the compromise entered into between the petitioner
and the respondent No.4, the matter shall be dealt with in accordance with the
law.
05. Under the changed facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that it may meet the ends of justice, in case due weight-age is given to
the compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused and the
FIR in question bearing No.0174 dated 09.09.2024 registered with Police
Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu is quashed, as the same is likely to allow the
contesting parties i.e. (Complainant and accused) to live a normal matrimonial
life.
06. Although this Court is of the opinion that an FIR cannot be generally and
in routine manner allowed to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section
528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code on the main ground that
the parties have settled their controversy that had become the cause of
3 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
occurrence, yet exceptional ground appears to be made out in the opinion of the
Court, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, for invoking its
extraordinary powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in question.
07. The provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320
of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court
under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code
regarding quashment of FIR‟s and criminal proceedings for the sake of the
society at large which is real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system.
08. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with an authoritative judgment of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as “Gopal Kumar B. Nar Vs. CBI (2014) 5 SCC
800″ in which it has been held that “though quashment of non-compoundable
offence under Section 482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties
would not amount to circumvention of Section 320, but such power has to be
exercised with care and caution and would depend on facts of each case.”
09. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (2017) 9 SCC
641″ has considered the aspect of the invocation of the inherent powers by the
High Courts under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the
Code and was pleased to lay down some broad governing principles for
invocation of such power of the High Courts. The relevant portions of the
judgment are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:
“Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The
statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a
superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to
4 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise
to secure the ends of justice.
The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the
subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
(i) 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
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court;
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First
5 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024Information 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;
(vi) 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;
(vii) 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;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall for
quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) 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
6 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic
offences involving the financial and economic
well-being 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 misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.
10. It is also needful to reproduce the relevant portion of the law laid down by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr
2022 15 SCC 44″ on an appeal, impugning the judgment and order dated
28.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi
thereby dismissing the criminal petition, which was filed for quashing the
criminal proceedings, as under:
i. In present case, consent given by respondent No. 2
for putting an end to proceeding was voluntary and
without any coercion and duress. Respondent No. 2,
in order to live in peace, wants to bring an end to
criminal proceedings.
ii. Though court should be slow in quashing
proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences
are involved. High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for
incorporation of such offences or as to whether there
is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to
proving for offence charged with.
7 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024iii. Court has also to take into consideration as to
whether settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may improve
their mutual relationship.
iv. It is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage
of proceedings. If application (for quashing
proceedings) is made at belated stage wherein
evidence has been led and matter is at stage of
arguments or judgment, Court should be slow to
exercise power to quash proceedings. However, if
such application is made at initial stage before
commencement of trial, said factor will weight with
Court in exercising its power.
v. In present case, facts and circumstances are
peculiar. Respondent 2 is young lady of 23 years. She
feels that going through trial in one case, where she
is complainant, and in other case, wherein she is
accused, would rob prime of her youth. She feels that
if she is made to face trial rather than getting any
relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing
trial.
vi. In both aforesaid cases, though charge-sheets have
been filed, charges are yet to be framed and as such,
trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted
that since Respondent 2 herself is not supporting
prosecution case, even if criminal trial is permitted to
go ahead, it will end in nothing else than acquittal. If
request of parties is denied, it will be amounting to
only adding one more criminal case already
overburdened criminal courts.
vii. In that view of the matter, though in heinous or
serious crime like rape, Court should not normally
exercise powers of quashing proceedings, in peculiar
8 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024facts and circumstances of present case and in order
to give succour to respondent 2 so that she is saved
from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one
as victim and one as accused, present is a fit case
wherein extraordinary powers of Supreme Court be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings.
viii. In that view of the matter, proceedings in criminal
cases arising out of both aforesaid FIRs are quashed
and set aside.
11. This Court in its opinion also feels fortified with the authoritative
judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as “Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and “Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466”, the relevant paras of which are reproduced as hereunder for the sake of
convenience:
“Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303″
61. “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 or 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 end 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 proceedings.”
“Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466″
9 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
29.”In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
sum up and lay down the following principles by
which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its power under Section
482of the Code while accepting the settlement and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482of
the Code is to be distinguished from the power
which lies in the Court to compound the offence
sunder Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not compoundable,
where the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution;
29.2 When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing
the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor
in such cases would be to secure :(i) ends of justice,
or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to
form an opinion no neither of the aforesaid two
objectives.
29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in
those prosecutions which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
10 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.”
12. Having regard to the amicable settlement of the dispute between the
petitioner/accused and the complainant/respondent No. 3, the continuance of the
criminal proceedings sought to be quashed appears to be a futile exercise, for
just completing the procedure for recording an order of acquittal. In its opinion,
this Court is fortified with the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in, (i)
Satesh Nehra V/S Delhi Administration 1996 (III) Crimes 85 SC; (ii) Madan
Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1969′ and (iii)
JugdishChananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr. AIR 2008 SC 1968.
Relevant Paras of the referred judgments deserve a needful mention as under:
“Satesh Nehra V/S Delhi Adminstration 1996 (III)
Crimes 85 SC.”
“But when the judge is fairly certain that there is no
prospect of the case, ending in conviction, the valuable time
of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for
purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce
the conclusion at a future date. Most of the Sessions Courts
in India are under heavy pressure of work load. If the
Sessions Judge is almost certain, that the trial would be only
an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is
advisable to truncate or swap the proceedings.”
“(ii) Madan Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969”
11 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
“In disputes where the question involved is of a purely
personal nature the court should ordinarily accept the terms
of compromise even in criminal proceedings keeping the
matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution in a luxury, which the courts, grossly
overburdened as they cannot afford and that the time so save
can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful
litigation.”
“(iii) Jugdish Chananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana
and anr AIR 2008 SC 1968”
“In the light of the compromise it is unlikely that the
prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the
dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is
involved in the transaction that had been entered into between
the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore,
would be a futile exercise we accordingly allow the appeal
and quash FIR83/12.3.2001 P/S City Sonapat and on
subsequent proceedings.”
13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has permitted the compounding of the offences
even at the appellate stage having regard to the mutual settlement between the
contesting parties and the nature of the offences involved in the proceedings
being personal in nature “[Mulukri Sira Prassad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
2001 (4) SC 254, Khursheed and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2007 and Ab.
Sattar Vs. State of M.PAIR 1981 SC 1775].”
14. Allowing the complainant/victim and the accused in a criminal
proceeding at any stage of investigation, trial or appeal to seek quashment of the
proceedings or the compounding of the offences even in cases where
12 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
commission of non-compoundable offences of personal nature not involving
public/social aspect is alleged, on the basis of amicable settlement, is not likely
to prove detrimental to the scope and object of the provisions of Section 359 of
the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code. Such an approach is likely
to put an end to some further apprehended litigation of both civil and criminal
nature and to allow the parties to have a peaceful and cordial relation, besides
saving the precious time of the Criminal Courts being already grossly over-
burdened as the continuance of such criminal proceedings is likely to prove a
futile exercise only for the purpose of completing the procedure for recording an
order of acquittal at the end. Provisions of Section 320 of the Code
corresponding to Section 359 of the BNSS do not restrict but only limit the
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code corresponding to Section
528 of BNSS so that the extraordinary powers are used only in exceptional
circumstances to meet the ends of justice. Provisions of Section 482 of the Code
(528 of BNSS) have an overriding affect and are not to be read as subject to the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code (359 of BNSS). The criminal proceedings,
involving heinous offences of anti- social nature or offences under special penal
statutes do not qualify for being quashed/compounded in exercise of the powers
under Section 482 of the Code (528 BNSS).
15. Criminal litigation between near relatives or co-sharers more often
originates from the civil/matrimonial disputes and as such directing the
quashment of proceedings by invoking the inherent powers under the
13 Bail App. No. 226/2024
c/w
CRM (M) No. 723/20242025:JKLHC-JMU:1606
CrlM No. 1470/2024
Code/BNSS, in such matters of personal nature not involving the commission of
any heinous offence is likely to meet the ends of justice.
16. Learned Registrar Judicial is directed to record the statements of the
petitioner/accused and the respondent No.4/complainant upon their due
identification by their respective witnesses who are present in the Court.
17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the case FIR bearing
No.0174/2024 dated 09.09.2024 under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC registered
with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu is quashed alongwith all subsequent
proceedings, if any.
18. However, in view of the ratio decidendi of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in Doly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal [2024 Live Law
(SC) 334-2024 SCC Online SC 754] decided on 19.04.2024, this order shall not be
construed as any opinion of this Court regarding the validity of marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent No.4.
Bail App. No. 226/2024
In light of the above disposal of main petition, the clubbed bail matter
bearing No.226/2024 stands automatically rendered infructuous.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
04.07.2025
Sapna
Whether the order is speaking: Yes or No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes or No
[ad_1]
Source link