Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Cr vs Ut Of J&K And Another on 1 August, 2025
Sr. No. 36
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
CR
.....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Aman Singh Chib and others
Through: Mr. J.P Gandhi, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and another ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. P.D Singh, Dy.AG for R- 1
Mr. Rajinder Singh Jamwal, Advocate for R-
2
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
01.08.2025
1. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under the
provisions of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟ for short), the petitioners have sought
the quashment of the FIR bearing No. 175 dated 23.07.2024 registered
against them with the Police Station, Satwari, Jammu i.e. respondent no.
1 on the main grounds that the respondent no. 2/complainant happens to
be their friend, whom they met on 23.07.2024 when the later was going
to a shop within his vicinity and out of a misunderstanding between all
of them, an incident occurred which led to the registration of the
impugned case FIR upon filing of the complaint by the aforesaid
respondent no. 2/complainant; that they have now mutually settled their
differences and are again living as friends; that the respondent no.
2 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
2\complainant has also sworn an affidavit dated 27.07.2025, duly
attested by a Judicial Magistrate, in which he has admitted on oath that a
complaint/FIR was lodged by him out of a misunderstanding and he does
not want to pursue the case.
2. The impugned case FIR stands registered with the respondent no. 1-SHO
Police Station, Satwari, Jammu under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2)
BNS and 4/25 Arms Act. It is submitted that no fire arm was in
possession or used by the petitioners/accused and they are alleged to
have possessed on the day of occurrence some knife-like article
regarding which, no licence was required by them.
3. All the petitioners as well as the respondent no.2/complainant are present
in person in the Court.
4. The respondent no.2/complainant submitted in the open Court that
petitioners are his friends and a complaint came to be lodged by him, on
the basis of a misunderstanding which led to the registration of
impugned FIR. He admitted that he has sworn an affidavit before the
learned Judicial Magistrate and admitted the contents of the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as
“Madhukar & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” 2025 INSC 819
decided on 14.07.2025.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
quashment of the impugned FIR, pursuant to the mutual settlement
3 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
between the private parties shall meet the ends of justice, as the same
shall facilitate the restoration of the cordial friendly relations between
them. He contend that having regard to the mutual settlement between
the parties, the continuance of the investigation proceedings appear to be
a futile exercise.
7. The statements of the petitioners and the respondent no.2/complainant
upon ascertainment of their identification in the open Court were
directed to be recorded by the Registry.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant also submitted
that the quashment of the impugned FIR is likely to meet the ends of
justice, as the same shall normalize the friendly relations between the
petitioners/accused and the respondent no.2/complainant.
9. The learned UT counsel Mr. P.D Singh, Dy.AG, however, submitted that
the matter may be dealt with in accordance with the law.
10. Keeping in view, the perusal of the petition and the consideration of the
submissions advanced at the bar by the learned counsels for the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in case
the petition is allowed and the impugned case FIR No. 175 dated
23.07.2024 registered with Police Station Satwari, Jammu under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2) BNS and 4/25 Arms Act is quashed.
11. The quashment of the impugned FIR is supposed to normalize the
relation between the petitioners/accused and the respondent
no.2/complainant who are alleged to be friends. Otherwise also the
continuance of the criminal proceedings i.e. investigation and trial in the
4 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
case is not likely to fulfill any purpose and shall be a futile exercise,
having regard to the mutual settlement between the parties.
12. 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 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
13. 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.
14. 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.”
5 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
15. 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
prevent 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
6 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025Procedure, 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
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;
(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
7 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025predominant 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
prejudice; 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.
16. 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:
8 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
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.
iii. 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
9 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025been 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
facts 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.
17. 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
10 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
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″
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
11 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025prevent 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
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.”
18. 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
12 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025prospect 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”
“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.”
19. 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
13 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
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].”
20. 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 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
14 CRM(M) No. 709/2025
CrlM No. 1344/2025
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).
21. 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
Code/BNSS, in such matters of personal nature not involving the
commission of any heinous offence is likely to meet the ends of justice.
22. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned case FIR No.175
dated 23.07.2024 of Police Station, Satwari, Jammu under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 191(2) BNS and 4/25 Arms Act is hereby quashed.
23. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, as such.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
01.08.2025
Sapna
Sapna Bamotra
2025.08.02 00:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document