Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gul Mast Khan vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Sho on 7 February, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No.104
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M)No.894/2024
1. Gul Mast Khan, Age 28 years
S/o Fareed Khan, R/o Village Bafliaz
Tehsil Surankote District Poonch.
2. Arbaz Khan, age 25 years .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Fareed Khan R/o Village Bafliaz Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch.
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of J&K through SHO
Police Station , Surankote
2. Shoket Ali, age 38 years S/o Mohd. Latief
R/o Village Dhara Mohra Tehsil Surankote
District Poonch. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, GA for R-1
Mr. Rahoof Khan, Advocate for R-2
Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.02.2025
1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 BNSS,
2023, the petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings in challan
titled UT of J&K v. Gul Mast Khan and another, pending before the
Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch
arising out of FIR No.0166/2023 dated 28.06.2023 for commission of
offence under Section 307/147/336/382 IPC registered at Police
Station, Surankote against the petitioners.
2
02. It is stated that the dispute arose between the parties, when on 27 th
June, 2023, respondent No.2 was unloading bricks from a truck for
construction of his new house at Dhera Mohra, Surankote. Respondent
No.2 submitted an application before the SHO Police Station,
Surankote on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be
registered against the petitioners herein and one other accused person,
which resulted in presentation of charge-sheet, which is pending
before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch.
03. During the pendency of the proceedings, due to the efforts and
attempts made by the friends and elders as well as respectable people
of the society to settle the dispute in order to maintain good and
healthy relationship, parties have decided to settle the dispute
amicably outside the Court. In the terms of the agreement arrived at
between the parties, they have decided to resolve the dispute and put
an end to the litigation. In terms of the said compromise, both the
parties have agreed to an end the disputes existing between the parties.
04. On 06th December, 2024, when the case was taken up, parties were
directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their
statements. The respondent No.2 and the petitioners have recorded
their statements before the Registrar Judicial and same are placed on
the record of the file.
05. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the
proceedings can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no
more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed
3
guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or
refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with
criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant
are reproduced below:-
“29.03 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.
29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out
of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
06. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioner does
not fall within the offence of heinous nature and keeping in view the
nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties
have already settled the matter and have agreed that respondent No. 2
has no objection if the impugned FIR and subsequent charge-sheet
titled UT of J&K v. Gul Mast Khan and another pending before the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch, is quashed.
07. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, there are
bleak chances of conviction and continuation of criminal proceedings
will cause grave injustice to the parties and would amount to abuse of
the process of Court, as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing
the same.
4
08. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, this petition is
allowed and FIR No.0166/2023 registered at Police Station,
Surankote, Poonch and consequent Charge-sheet titled UT of J&K v.
Gul Mast Khan and another, pending disposal before Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Poonch, are quashed.
09. Disposed of accordingly.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
Judge
Jammu
07.02.2025
Vinod, PS
Whether order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether order is reportable: Yes/No
Vinod Kumar
2025.02.10 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link