Lovepreet Singh and Others v. Ut of J and K Th Station House Officer Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar and Another

ORDER

(ORAL)

23.12.2024

¶1Upon coming of this matter for consideration, the appearing counsels for the petitioners as also respondent 2 herein would submit that a compromise has been arrived at inter see the petitioners and respondent 2 herein outside the Court and have amicably settled their disputes whereunder the FIR in question had got registered at the instance of respondent 2 against the petitioners.

¶2Learned counsels for the parties would also submit that in furtherance of the said compromise arrived at, the petitioners and respondent 2 herein have got their respective statements also recorded pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2024 acknowledging the terms of the compromise entered into. Sr. No. 33

¶3The appearing counsels for the parties thus would seek disposal of the instant petition by quashing the impugned FIR as also the charge sheet filed consequent thereto pending trial before the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (13th. F.C.) Jammu. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶4Before proceeding to settle the instant petition finally on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners herein and respondent 2 herein, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. The Apex Court in the case titled as "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another" reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303", at paragraph 61 has held as under: - "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 of 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 proceeding". In "Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another" reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641", the Apex Court has also noticed as under: - "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions:

16.1 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2 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.

16.3 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.

16.4 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.

16.5 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.

16.6 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.

16.7 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.

16.8 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.

16.9 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

16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing 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."

¶5Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (supra) and having regard to the issues involved in the instant petition, coupled with the statements of the complainant/respondent 2 including the submissions of the appearing counsels for the parties, it is manifest that the FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of respondent 2 herein against the petitioners herein relating to a matrimonial dispute being essentially private in nature and having been amicably settled by the parties outside the court. Thus, in view of the said amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of the conviction of the petitioners herein being accused persons in the FIR in question is remote and continuation of the same would rather put the petitioners herein to great oppression and extreme injustice. Therefore, ends of justice demand quashment of the impugned FIR along with the consequent charge sheet by putting an end to the instant proceedings thereof.

¶6Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 06/2021 registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu along with charge-sheet bearing No. 8/2021 dated 03.06.2021 pending before the court of Special Mobile Magistrate, (13th FC), Jammu against the petitioners herein are quashed.

¶7Disposed of.

(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu

23.12.2024 Neha-II

Whether the order is speaking:

Whether the order is reportable:

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CrlM No. 1649/2024 Lovepreet Singh and ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG Mr. Zulkernain Sheikh, Advocate Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE