Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Deepak Mala And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 1 July, 2025
Sr. No. 35
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 577/2024
C
Deepak Mala and another .....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Rajiv Chargotra, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. P.D Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for R- 4.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
01.07.2025
1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under the provisions of
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as to BNSS for short), the petitioners have sought the
quashment of the FIR bearing No. 0063/2024 dated 11.06.2024 registered
with Police Station Channi Himmat under Sections 420,403,406 IPC, on
the grounds mentioned in the petition. Since the petitioners have inter alia
pleaded in the instant petition that they had earlier also filed a same nature
of petition with the same prayer, which came to be withdrawn, as the
mutual compromise attempted by the private parties did not materialize in
the same. This Court as per its previous order dated 26.07.2024 has taken
note of situation whereunder the petitioners being in custody at that point
of time, were alleged to have executed a compromise deed and SHO
concerned was directed to file a personal affidavit in this Court which he
failed to file. The officer concerned is under a legal obligation to do the
2 CRM(M) No. 577/2024
needful notwithstanding the change in the circumstances as the private
parties have now amicably reached to a settlement.
2. The petitioners/accused and the respondent No. 4/complainant are
reported to have executed a mutual compromise in respect of the dispute
that had led to the registration of the case FIR sought to be quashed. A
miscellaneous application bearing No. CrlM No. 758/2025 supported with
an affidavit and enclosed with a copy of the said compromise, has also
been filed with the prayer to take the same on record. The learned counsel
for the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 in the open Court attested the
contents of the said compromise. Their statements are taken on record.
3. Actually, the allegations as per the FIR sought to be quashed are that the
respondent No. 4 subscribed to the group of committee run by the
petitioner No. 1 as a Financer and in the process parted with an amount of
Rs. 60 Lakhs as per the agreed scheme, under the promise of one time
financial assistance but the petitioner No. 1 failed to stand by her promise
and thereby cheated the respondent No. 4, in addition to committing the
dishonest, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of the
whole committee property.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.
4/complainant that the respondent No. 4 has received his entire agreed
amount and nothing is outstanding now from the petitioners.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
it may meet the interest of justice, in case, the compromise is taken on
record, the petition allowed, and the impugned FIR is quashed. It is the
admitted case of the complainant/respondent No. 4 that he was having
3 CRM(M) No. 577/2024
some business terms with the petitioners who are known to him since
times and as such the quashment of this FIR is likely to save the relation
between the private parties. Furthermore, in the backdrop of the mutual
compromise entered into between the private parties, the criminal case if
allowed to go on under law is likely to end in acquittal of the
petitioners/accused.
6. Allowing this petition as such will save the valuable time of the Courts
below, being already “over burdened”.
7. Accordingly, the impugned FIR bearing No. 0063/2024 dated 11.06.2024
registered with Police Station, Channi Himmat, is quashed, with
subsequent proceedings if any initiated.
8. Disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
01.07.2025
Rahul
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No