Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ram Krishan And Others vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 1 September, 2023
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No. 122
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 631/2023
Ram Krishan and others .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
Mr. Haroon Rashid, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
01. Petitioner seeks quashing of charge sheet No. 05/2022 dated 02.06.2022 titled "UT of J&K v/s Ram Krishan & ors" under section 498A and 34 of IPC dated 02.06.2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathua, bearing file number 29/Challan arising out of FIR No. 08/2022 dated 18.05.2022 under section 498A and 34 of IPC registered with Police Station, Kathua, on the basis of Deed of Compromise dated 07.06.2023 executed on 08.06.2023 entered between the parties.
02. The petitioner states that the impugned F.I.R was registered at the instance of complaint made by respondent No. 3 due to temperamental differences between both petitioner No. l and respondent No.3, who were also not able to cohabitate their married life and due to this reason both are residing separately from each other. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 filed the divorce petition against the respondent No. 3 and after that many other cases were filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner No. 1 which includes petition under Domestic Violence Act and FIR under sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and FIR under section 420 of IPC.
CRM(M) No. 631/2023___ Page 2 of 4
03. 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 07.06.2023, which is placed on record and decided to resolve the dispute and put 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 misunderstandings between them. Both the parties are present in Court today, their statement have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial of this Court on 28.08.2023 and after being duly identified by their respective counsels.
05. The 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:-
"29.03 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 CRM(M) No. 631/2023___ Page 3 of 4 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."
06. In 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."
07. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offence of heinous nature and keeping in view the nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties have already settled the matter and have agreed that respondent No. 2 has no objection if FIR as stated above, is quashed.
08. In view of the compromise where the possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties, as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the same.
09. In 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 the charge sheet No. 05/2022 dated 02.06.2022 titled "UT of J&K v/s Ram Krishan & ors" under section 498A and 34 of IPC dated 02.06.2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathua is quashed. CRM(M) No. 631/2023___ Page 4 of 4
10. Disposed of accordingly.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu:
01.09.2023 Michal Sharma Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No