Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Lovepreet Singh And Ors vs Respondent(S) on 23 December, 2024
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr. No. 33
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 802/2024
CrlM No. 1649/2024
Lovepreet Singh and ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate
Vs
..... Respondent(s)
UT of J&K and anr.
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG
Mr. Zulkernain Sheikh, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
(ORAL)
23.12.2024
1. Upon coming of this matter for consideration, the appearing counsels for
the petitioners as also respondent 2 herein would submit that a
compromise has been arrived at inter see the petitioners and respondent 2
herein outside the Court and have amicably settled their disputes
whereunder the FIR in question had got registered at the instance of
respondent 2 against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsels for the parties would also submit that in furtherance of
the said compromise arrived at, the petitioners and respondent 2 herein
have got their respective statements also recorded pursuant to the order
passed by this Court on 20.12.2024 acknowledging the terms of the
compromise entered into.
2 CRM(M) No. 802/2024
3. The appearing counsels for the parties thus would seek disposal of the
instant petition by quashing the impugned FIR as also the charge sheet
filed consequent thereto pending trial before the court of Special Mobile
Magistrate (13th. F.C.) Jammu.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Before proceeding to settle the instant petition finally on the basis of
compromise entered into between the petitioners herein and respondent 2
herein, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the law laid
down by the Apex Court in this regard.
The Apex Court in the case titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303″, at paragraph 61 has held
as under: –
“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 FIR 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
3 CRM(M) No. 802/2024offences 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 end and if
4 CRM(M) No. 802/2024the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding”.
In “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Others v. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC
641″, the Apex Court has also noticed 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 inhere in 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.
5 CRM(M) No. 802/2024
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 in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute.
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
6 CRM(M) No. 802/2024
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 misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex
Court in the judgments (supra) and having regard to the issues involved in
the instant petition, coupled with the statements of the
complainant/respondent 2 including the submissions of the appearing
counsels for the parties, it is manifest that the FIR in question came to be
registered at the instance of respondent 2 herein against the petitioners
herein relating to a matrimonial dispute being essentially private in nature
and having been amicably settled by the parties outside the court. Thus, in
view of the said amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of
the conviction of the petitioners herein being accused persons in the FIR
in question is remote and continuation of the same would rather put the
petitioners herein to great oppression and extreme injustice. Therefore,
ends of justice demand quashment of the impugned FIR along with the
consequent charge sheet by putting an end to the instant proceedings
thereof.
7 CRM(M) No. 802/2024
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.
06/2021 registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar,
Jammu along with charge-sheet bearing No. 8/2021 dated 03.06.2021
pending before the court of Special Mobile Magistrate, (13th FC), Jammu
against the petitioners herein are quashed.
7. Disposed of.
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
23.12.2024
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
NEHA KUMARI
2024.12.24 10:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document