Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Malkeet Singh vs The U.T. Of J&K Through on 7 March, 2025
Sr. No. 01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 152/2025
1. Malkeet Singh, Age 30 years
S/O Lt. S. Paramjeet Singh,
R/O Village Dablehar,
Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu
2. Sulinder Kour, Age 59 years
W/O Lt. S. Paramjeet Singh,
R/O Village Dablehar,
Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu
3. Iqbal Singh, Age 35 years,
S/O Lt. S. Paramjeet Singh,
R/O Village Dablehar,
Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu
4. Gurjeet Kour, Age 26 years,
W/O S. Iqbal Singh,
R/O Village Dablehar,
Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mohd. Anwar Chowdhary, Advocate.
Vs
1. The U.T. of J&K through
Its Additional Chief-
Secretary (Financial
Commissioner),
Home Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu-180001.
2. The Station House Officer,
Police Station, Women Cell,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-
180002.
2 CRM(M) No. 152/2025
3. Lakhwinder Kour,
D/O S. Gian Singh,
W/O S. Malkeet Singh,
R/O Village Dablehar,
Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 & 2.
Ms. Supriya Chouhan, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
07.03.2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking
quashment of FIR No. 0024/2023 dated 25.04.2023 under
Sections 498-A and 109 IPC registered at Police Station,
Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners
at the behest of respondent No. 3, asserting therein that the
marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent
No. 3 was solemnized on 23.01.2022 according to Sikh rites
and rituals and in presence of both the families and their
relatives and there is no issue born out of the said wedlock;
that soon after the marriage, certain misunderstanding and
serious differences cropped up between the couple, which
resulted into a matrimonial dispute and since then, they
started living separately from each other and despite several
meetings of the elders and relatives, the same could not be
3 CRM(M) No. 152/2025
resolved leading to filing of several cases, in civil and
criminal courts and Police Station at Jammu and R.S. Pura
and before Army Authorities also, by both the petitioner No.
1 and respondent No. 3 against each other and against their
families.
2. It has been alleged that the impugned FIR No. 0024 dated
25.04.2023 was registered at Police Station, Women Cell,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC
against the petitioners at the behest of the respondent No. 3,
resulting into charge-sheet No. 949/2023 dated 10.07.2023
under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC titled “UT of J&K V/s
Malkeet Singh & Ors.” sub-judice in the Court of learned
Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu, is
nothing but an off-shoot of such a matrimonial discord.
3. It has been further asserted by the petitioners that the
petitioner No. 1, who is a member of Indian Army, and his
wife i.e. respondent No. 3, have resolved their matrimonial
dispute with the intervention of Commanding Officer of
Petitioner No. 1 and legal counsel of respondent No. 3 and
now they both are living happily together in the Army’s
Government Quarter allotted to the petitioner No. 1 in West
Bengal where the petitioner is presently posted; that the
parties have also entered into a compromise, which has
been reduced into writing on 24.01.2024, that they shall live
4 CRM(M) No. 152/2025
peacefully and amicably, hence, the petitioners are seeking
the indulgence of this Court for quashment of the impugned
FIR No. 0024 dated 25.04.2023 registered at Police Station,
Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A
and 109 IPC registered against the petitioners at the behest
of the respondent No. 3 and also the
proceedings/challan/charge-sheet/final report No.
949/2023 dated 10.07.2023, Sections 498-A and 109 IPC
titled “UT of J&K V/s Malkeet Singh & Ors.” sub-judice in the
Court of Learned Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax,
Jammu, particularly, in view of the settlement arrived
amongst the parties which led to the execution of
compromise deed dated 24.01.2024.
4. This Court, vide order dated 25.02.2025, directed
examination of the parties in support of the compromise
placed on record. The statements of the petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 3 have been recorded, who have supported
the contentions made in the compromise. The other parties
have also filed their sworn affidavits in support of the
compromise. The parties have been identified by their
respective counsel.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 that the
5 CRM(M) No. 152/2025
parties have compromised with each other and prayed that
the petition be allowed. The State counsel also did not raise
any serious objections to the plea raised by the learned
counsel for the private parties. Their statements are taken
on record.
6. Since the petitioners, who are accused in a case registered
at the instance of respondent No. 3, who is the wife of
petitioner No. 1, have resolved their dispute by entering into
a compromise, no purpose shall be served in case the FIR in
question is not quashed by this Court and the parties are
made to run through the mill of trial before a court which
shall be almost a mock trial resulting into acquittal wasting
the time of the parties and serving no cause of justice.
7. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court in its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is no longer res integra. The Apex Court
in the case reported as B.S. Joshi & Ors v. State of
Haryana & Anr, (2003 Cri.L.J. 2028) held as under:-
“14.There is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in
the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a
husband and his relatives who harass or torture the
6 CRM(M) No. 152/2025wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be
counter productive and would act against interests of
women and against the object for which this provision
was added. There is every likelihood that non exercise
of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet
the ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of
Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold
that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers
can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”
The aforesaid view of the Apex Court in the judgment (supra)
has subsequently been reiterated in Narinder Singh & Ors
vs. State of Punjab & Anr, (2014(6) SCC 466).
8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned cases and in view of the statements having
been made by learned counsel for the parties that the
parties have entered into a compromise, the investigation in
the FIR in question would serve no fruitful purpose. The
present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR No. 0024 dated
25.04.2023 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi
Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, as also
the proceedings/challan/charge-sheet/final report No.
949/2023 dated 10.07.2023, under Sections 498-A and 109
IPC titled “UT of J&K V/s Malkeet Singh & Ors.” sub-judice
7 CRM(M) No. 152/2025
in the Court of Learned Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger
Tax, Jammu, are also quashed.
9. Disposed of, accordingly.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
07.03.2025
SUNIL
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
…
[ad_1]
Source link