Mohd Hafiz v. U T of J and K Th Incharge Police Station Bani Kathua and Another

ORDER

(22.12.2023.)

Petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No. 051 dated 26.08.2023 under Sections 323,342,504,506 IPC registered with Police Station, Bani.

¶2The petitioner states that the impugned F.I.R was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 in connivance with some other local persons to harass the petitioner as he belongs to the minority community.

¶03It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court. They have also entered into a compromise with each other and executed a Compromise Deed on 22.10.2023, which is placed on record and decided to resolve the dispute thereby putting an end to litigation.

04.

In terms of the said compromise, it is stated that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have clarified all mistakes and

Sr. No. 89

misunderstandings between them. In view of compromise entered into between the parties, both the parties were directed to record their statements before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. In compliance to the said directions, their statements have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial of this Court on

24.11.2023 wherein the parties have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

¶05The question which arises for consideration whether the proceedings can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others', (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant are reproduced below:- "29.4 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.

29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."

¶06In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 247, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under: "12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings."

¶07In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offence of heinous nature. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties have already settled the matter, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed.

¶08In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 051 dated 26.08.2023 registered under Sections 323,342,504,506 IPC with Police Station, Bani is quashed.

¶10Disposed of accordingly.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)

JUDGE Jammu

22.12.2023 sanjeev

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 805/2023 Mohd Hafiz son of Rehman resident of Barmota Bani District Kathua ..... petitioner (s) Through :- Mr Jasbir Singh Jasrotia Advocate. V/s 1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Incharge Police Station Bani Kathua 2 . Kuldeep Singh son of Chatter Singh resident of Kilore Morha Dumia Bani District Kathua .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr Sudershan Kumar Advocate for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE