Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Suraj Parkash Sagotra And Another vs State Of J&K And Another on 3 August, 2021
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No. 223
(After Notice Cause list)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No.502/2014
IA No. 590/2014
IA No. 94/2015
Suraj Parkash Sagotra and another .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rohit Kohli, Advocate
Vs
State of J&K and another ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R-1&2
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
03.08.2021
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who happen to be parents in law of respondent No. 3 for quashing of FIR bearing No. 89/2014 dated 25.09.2014 registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Canal Road, Jammu for commission of offences under section 498-A/109 RPC.
2. During the course of hearing, copy of decree sheet and award have been placed before the Court and the same is taken on record.
3. Mr. Rohit Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 3 and her husband have parted their ways and the marriage has been dissolved by decree of divorce passed under section 15 of the J&K Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 vide decree dated 25.04.2018. It is further stated that the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 under Domestic Violence Act have been settled and by virtue NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRMC No.502/2014 of award dated 11.02.2017, respondent No. 3 has withdrawn the said proceedings.
4. Mr. Vikas Magotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that there is nothing outstanding between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate was asked to produce respondent No. 3 before this Court but he submits that respondent No. 3 is living at Mumbai and it is not possible for her to come and he has been authorized to make submission before this Court with regard to settlement of dispute including FIR in question.
5. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that he has no objection in the event, FIR in question is quashed in case the parties have settled their dispute.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. As per decree sheet, respondent No. 3 has received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as permanent alimony as future maintenance. In view of this, this Court is the considered view that once husband of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 have settled their dispute, the continuance of the said FIR in which the husband of respondent No. 3 is also one of the accused shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
8. Law is well settled that if the parties have settled their disputes amicably, then the criminal proceedings whether arising out of private complaint or out of FIR for commission of offences under sections 498-A RPC can be quashed notwithstanding the fact that the section 498-A RPC is non- NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRMC No.502/2014 compoundable. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case, titled, Jatinder Raghuvanshi and ors. v Babita Raghuvanshi and anr. reported in 2013 (4) SCC 58, in which it has been held that even if the offences are non compoundable, if they are relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and without any pressure, then section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercising of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
9. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 3, criminal proceedings in FIR. 89/2014 dated 25.09.2014 registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Canal Road for commission of offences under sections 498A and 109 RPC against the petitioners, are quashed.
10. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected IA.
(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge Jammu 03.08.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document