Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Shafi And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another on 22 July, 2025
Sr. No. 17
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: CRM(M) No.656/2022
Mohd. Shafi and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Sumir Pandita, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and another .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA for R-1.
Mr. Shams Ud-Din Shaaz, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
22.07.2025
1. The petitioners and the son of the respondent No.2/complainant namely,
Shampoo-the alleged victim are present in person.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners and the
respondent No.2/complainant that the parties being represented by them have
entered into a mutual settlement in respect of the incident that led to the
registration of the impugned case FIR bearing No.336/2022 dated 28.08.2022
registered with SHO Police Station, Kathua under Sections 364, 341, 147 IPC and
3/25 Arms Act. They further submitted that actually the son of the
complainant/respondent No.2 on the alleged incident day i.e. 28.08.2022 had been
arrested by the Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala Amritsar (Punjab) in connection
with case FIR bearing No.188/2022 dated 26.07.2022 and he was in the custody
of the said police station right on the alleged incident day. That the respondent
No.2 i.e. the father of the alleged victim under a misconception prompted to lodge
the impugned FIR accusing the petitioners. The petitioners have filed a
2 CRM(M) No.656/2022
miscellaneous application bearing CrlM No.824/2025 supported with an affidavit
seeking the permission to place on record the compromise deed dated 07.04.2025
executed between the petitioners and the respondent No.2/complainant. The said
compromise agreement has been gone through. The said compromise is executed
by the petitioners and the respondent No.2/complainant as well as the alleged
victim i.e. the son of the said complainant/respondent No.2, who is present before
the Court. The said compromise deed is taken on record. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the private parties that in the light of the mutual settlement
between the parties, the instant petition be allowed and the impugned case FIR be
quashed in the ends of justice.
3. However, the learned UT counsel Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the offences involved
in the case FIR are serious nature and highly anti social as such, the petition does
not deserve to be allowed on the basis of compromise. He submitted that the
petition be dismissed and the I/O concerned be given at liberty to proceed with
the investigation of case under law.
4. In the light of the changed circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that it may meet the ends of justice, in case the compromise arrived at
between the petitioners and the respondent No.2/complainant is taken note of and
the petition is allowed on the basis of same with the quashment of the impugned
FIR. The facts and circumstances of the case as put-forth before the Court,
coupled with the settlement between the parties justify the quashment of the
impugned FIR. The quashment of the impugned FIR on the basis of mutual
settlement between the parties is likely to meet the ends of justice as the same
shall harmonize the relation between the petitioners and the respondent
3 CRM(M) No.656/2022
No.2/complainant as well as his son- the victim, who are the residents of the same
area/village. Otherwise also, the case is not likely to meet its fate on merits in
view of the compromise between the parties. Proceeding with the impugned case
FIR is likely to be a futile exercise.
5. Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to record the statements of the
petitioners and the son of the complainant/respondent No.2. The statements of the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant be also recorded.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
4 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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.
9. 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
5 CRM(M) No.656/2022invocation 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.
(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
6 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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 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;
(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.
10. It is also needful to reproduce the relevant portion of the law laid down
7 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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:
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.
8 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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 been 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.
11. 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
9 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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 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
10 CRM(M) No.656/2022even 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 prevent 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.”
12. 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
11 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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
prospect 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
12 CRM(M) No.656/2022involved 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.”
13. 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 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].”
14. 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
13 CRM(M) No.656/2022
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 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).
15. 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.
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the case FIR bearing
No.336/2022 dated 28.08.2022 under Sections 364, 341, 147 IPC and 3/25 of
Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Kathua, is quashed alongwith all
subsequent proceedings, if any.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
22.07.2025
Shammi
SHAMMI KUMAR
2025.07.25 12:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document