Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sukhjinder Pal Singh And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Another on 21 July, 2025
Sr. No. 89
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 653/2025
Sukhjinder Pal Singh and another .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate vice
Ms. Shivani Jalali, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and another ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. P.D Singh, Dy.AG for R- 1
Ms. Mandeep Reen, Advocate for R- 2
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
21.07.2025
1. Mr. P.D Singh, learned Dy.AG appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 and Ms. Mandeep Reen, Advocate appears and accepts
notice in the matter on behalf of respondent no.2/complainant-Harjot Kour.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 also filed her Power of
Attorney accompanied with a print out of the Adhaar card of the
complainant which is taken on record. Registry to make an entry in the
physical as well as in the digital file of the case, as regards the filing of the
said Power of Attorney.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent
no.2/complainant that parties after a long drawn litigation have mutually
settled their matrimonial dispute and have compromised all other pending
matters in different Courts. They submitted that the parties have also filed a
mutual motion for dissolution of marriage before the competent Court
which is pending disposal. The statements of the learned counsel for the
parties are taken on record.
2 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
4. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is of the considered
opinion that it may meets the ends of justice in case the criminal
case/challan bearing No.10/2021 arising out of case FIR No.0009/2021
dated 14.03.2021 of Police Station, Women Cell Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and
titled as “UT of J&K v/s Sukhjinder Singh and another” and pending
disposal before the Court of Learned City Judge, Jammu, is quashed.
5. The quashment of the said case is likely to relieve the contesting parties of
their year’s long trauma. The petitioners have placed on record of the
petition, by way of Annexures/Copies, the Compromise Deed and other
withdrawal orders in respect of other cases. The pendency of the criminal
case sought to be quashed is not otherwise also likely to fulfill any purpose,
in view of the settlement between the parties.
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
3 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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
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 summarized in the following
propositions:
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of
the High Court to prevent an abuse of the
4 CRM(M) No. 653/2025process 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
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.
(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;
5 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
(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 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.
6 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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 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
7 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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.
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
8 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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 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
9 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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 even 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
10 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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 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.”
11 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
“(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 involved 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
12 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
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 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.
13 CRM(M) No. 653/2025
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned case FIR bearing
No.0009/2021 dated 14.03.2021 under Sections 498-A, 109 of the Indian Penal
Code registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
alongwith the Final report/Challan pending trial before the Court of Learned
City Judge, Jammu, are quashed.
17. Disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
21.07.2025
Sapna