Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Reyaz Ahmad Khan And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 15 July, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
S. No. 91
Suppl. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No. 226/2022
CrlM No. 703/2022
Reyaz Ahmad Khan and Ors. ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq & Mr. Mian Muzaffar, Advocates
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with
Mr. Faizan Ahmad, CGC & Ms. Yasmeen Jan, Advocate for
R-1 to R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
ORDER
15.07.2025
1. Quashing of FIR no.43/2022 for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered in Police Station, Kargil, is sought for in the instant petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record on the file and considered the matter.
3. A complaint had been filed by respondent No.5 against the petitioners and proforma respondents before the respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Kargil, who forwarded it to respondent No.3- Additional Superintendent of Police, Kargil. The respondent No.3 on the basis of enquiry directed the respondent No.4-Station House Officer, Police Station, Kargil, to register FIR and accordingly, he registered an FIR No. 43/2022 for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation in the matter.
4. The background facts of the cases are that the petitioners and proforma respondents had entered into a sale deeds with respect to different plots of land with respondent No.5 and those sale deeds had also been got registered and after proper identification of the land, the possession thereof handed over to them by respondent No.5. The respondent No.5, 1 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 who is a broker and had sold the land to petitioners and proforma respondents, is alleged to be a greedy person and does not hold a good track record with regard to sale and purchase of the land and concocted a story that the sale deeds executed by the petitioners and proforma respondents with him are fraudulent documents and have filed a complaint before the local police alleging therein that some persons had sold land which was earmarked for District Court Complex, Kargil, which after verification found that the land belongs to petitioners and proforma respondents and is located 400 meters away from the boundary of the land earmarked for District Court Complex, Kargil. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kargil, and the said Court vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. The respondent No.5, has filed another complaint with respondent No.2 for registering an FIR against the petitioners and proforma respondents. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, who on the basis of some enquiry directed the respondent No.4 to register FIR in the matter. Accordingly, respondent No.4 has registered FIR No. 43/2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation.
5. On 18.03.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that the parties have entered into compromise and award has also been passed by National Lok Adalat at District Court, Kargil. This Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements on 27.05.2025. However, on 27.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that due to ailment of petitioner No.1, the petitioners could not appear before the Registrar Judicial and this Court again directed them to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in the first week of July. This Court vide its order dated 14.07.2025 observed that statements of parties had been recorded, but they were not present and they were directed to appear through virtual mode on the next date of hearing.
6. Today, when the matter has come up for consideration, parties are 2 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 present through virtual mode.
7. Counsel for petitioners would contend that dispute between the parties, that resulted in lodgement of FIR as well, has been resolved by them by amicable settlement as is evident from their statements recorded by Registrar Judicial of this Court and, as such, impugned FIR may be quashed because if FIR is not quashed it will cause great oppression and prejudice to petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions have placed reliance on the judgements passed in Sardar Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home Department and Anr., AIR 2020 SC 626; judgement dated 16th January 2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.112/2019 titled as Akil Ahmad vs. State of Uttarakhand and others; judgement dated 9th February 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.CriminalMisc (Pet.) No.610/2022 titled as Devraj v. State of Rajasthan and another.
8. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to say that provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provide for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court, which is noticed as under:
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. -- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
9. Exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus, envisages three circumstances in which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
10. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve a salutary purpose and that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing 3 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 pressure upon accused, in exercise of the inherent powers such proceedings can be quashed.
11. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the Court and after referring to earlier decisions, the Supreme Court enumerated the following categories of cases by way of illustration where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89, had an occasion to 4 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analyzing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has laid down that the authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It has further held that the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation/ continuance thereof amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. Following was laid down in paragraph 06:
"6......All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquidalicuiconcedit, concederevidetur et id sine quo res ipsaeesse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
13. It would also be worthwhile to reproduce paragraph 8 infra:
"8.....Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the 5 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)."
14. The Supreme Court in another case titled as Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai reported in 2008 (8) SCC 232, relied on Category 07 as laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In the said case the Allahabad High Court dismissed petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 494, 120-B, and 109 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After noticing background facts and parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Supreme Court has held that Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court as it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The High Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine, which finds expression in the section, which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether the civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of the administration of justice on the principlequando lex aliquidalicuiconcedit, concederevidetur id sine quo res ipsaesse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial 6 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of the justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
15. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of complaint, FIR has been lodged against petitioners and proforma respondents, however, parties after arriving at amicable settlement before Lok Adalat at Kargil on 13.08.2022. In such circumstances pendency of criminal proceedings before Trial court or for that matter any other proceeding/case(s) of like nature before any other Court/forum, amounts to abuse of process of law and in order to serve interests of justice, exercise of inherent powers under and in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is imperative.
16. After considering the law laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty and another v. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238; and Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court held:
"8. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power."
17. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that ends of justice require that proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances 7 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 of each case and it has to be exercised inappropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
18. In the facts and circumstance of this case and taking note of their stand taken by them in their pleadings, it would serve no purpose to keep case-FIR/criminal proceedings pending against petitioner and this Court in exercise of its inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the same so that parties get rid of uncertainties that prevail between them in view of the impugned challan/proceedings. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The observations of the Supreme Court made in the paragraph 29 in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) are very relevant and same are reproduced as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of 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 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under 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 secure:
(i) end 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 on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3 Such a power is not to 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 the offences alleged to have been committed under special 8 CRM(M) No. 226/2022 CrlM No. 703/2022 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 hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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."
19. The aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court have been relied by various High Courts and in appropriate cases, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.
20. In light of aforesaid legal position, besides that the parties have already settled their dispute before Lok Adalat, this Court thinks it appropriate to allow instant petition as continuance of proceedings before Trial Court would be sheer abuse of process of law.
21. Based on the all-inclusive consideration of the facts and circumstances summed up in foregoing paragraphs, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seemingly is warranted. Hence, the instant petition is allowed. FIR no.43/2022 for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered in Police Station, Kargil, is quashed.
22. Disposed of in terms of above.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 15.07.2025 Manzoor 9 Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM(M) No. 226/2022 Srinagar 30.07.2025 14:21 CrlM No. 703/2022