Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Umer Mohi-Ud-Din Dar & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 20 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No.46
regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No.88/2024
UMER MOHI-UD-DIN DAR & ORS ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Hamza Prince, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy. AG-for R1 to R4.
Mr. Khalid Jahangir, Advocate-for R5.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
20.12.2024
1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition filed under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, have challenged order dated 17.06.2023 passed
by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, whereby, on an
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C filed by respondent No.5,
SHO P/S, Budgam, has been directed to lodge FIR against the petitioners
under Sections 352 and 379 IPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order
31.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Budgam, whereby, while rejecting the revision filed by the
petitioners, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate has been
upheld.
2) As per case of the petitioners, respondent No.5 was married to one
Mehnaz, who happens to be the sister of petitioner No.1 and daughter of
petitioner No.2, more than ten years ago and out of the said wedlock three
children were born. It has been contended that after marriage, said Mehnaz
Page |2
was being brutally tortured by respondent No.5 by inflicting physical,
emotional and economic abuse. It is being contended that when no remorse
or intentions to settle the issue came forth from respondent No.5, his wife,
namely, Mehnaz was forced to file an application under the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in which an interim
order awarding maintenance in favour of wife of respondent No.5 was
passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Budgam.
3) According to the petitioners, respondent No.5 filed a frivolous
complaint before the SHO concerned alleging therein that his wife and
children had been forcibly taken away. The police conducted investigation
but found that no offence had been committed and, accordingly, did not
lodge any FIR against the petitioners. Respondent No.5 thereafter filed an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C, on which a report was sought.
The police concerned submitted its report stating therein that the petitioners
have not committed any offence and, in fact, it is Mst. Mehnaz who has
been the victim of grave crimes. It is contended that in the meanwhile, the
Child Development Project Officer, Poshan Budgam (Protection Officer
under Domestic Violence Act) also submitted the report which
substantiated the stand of the wife of respondent No.5.
4) It has been contended that the learned Magistrate thereafter passed
the impugned order 17.06.2023 directing registration of FIR against the
petitioners under Section 352 and 379 of IPC, by ignoring the settled
principles of law. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before
the Revisional Court but the same was rejected in terms of impugned order
dated 31.01.2024, hence the instant petition.
Page |3
5) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the
parties have entered into a compromise. They have produced a copy of the
compromise deed before this Court.
6) In support of the deed of compromise, the statements of petitioner
No.1 and the complainant Hilal Ahmad Dar (respondent No.5 herein) have
been recorded by the Registrar Judicial wherein they have stated that they
have amicably settled their dispute and that they have no grievance against
each other. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have
approached this Court for seeking quashment of the impugned orders and
the proceedings emanating therefrom.
7) Heard and considered. 8) So far as the fact pertaining to the compromise arrived at between
the parties, is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The question arises as
to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings.
9) It is a settled law that the offences arising out of the disputes where
the wrong is basically private or personal in nature like disputes arising out
of matrimony and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High
Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings,
particularly when, as a consequence of the compromise arrived at between
the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused.
In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court
in the cases of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC
303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, (2014) 6
SCC 466.
Page |4
10) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties
have entered into a compromise wherein the complainant has categorically
stated that she is not willing to pursue the proceedings and that the parties
have settled their disputes amicably. It is also pertinent to mention here that
the petitioner and the complainant are closely related to each other and the
offences alleged exclusively arise out of matrimonial dispute between the
complainant and her husband. In these circumstances, if an end is not put
to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to giving a fresh lease of life
to the dispute between close relatives which has been settled by them
amicably. It will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise that
has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of criminal
proceedings against the accused/petitioner in these circumstances, will be
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
11) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the
impugned orders and the proceedings emanating therefrom against
petitioners are quashed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
20.12.2024
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.12.2024 08:37