Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Amarjeet Singh And Others vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 16 October, 2023
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 51
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 532/2021
Amarjeet Singh and others .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. R.D. Singh Bandral, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG.
Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
16.10.2023
01. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 71/2020 registered at Police Station, Kana Chack, District Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 147 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
02. The facts of the case in brief are that, on the application of the complainant Mohinder Kour on 19.05.2020, which she gave in Police Station, Kana Chack, on 19.05.2020, stating that the petitioners are cutting the crops of land, despite the order of attachment of property under Section 145 CrPC by SDM, Marh. She was beaten by stick, darati, bamboo sticks and toka etc. On these allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered, as such, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said FIR.
03. The contention of the petitioners is that they are all male members of a family and are falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR to pressurize and enable them to accept the demands of private respondent No. 3 and CRM(M) No. 532/2021 Page 2 of 4 his family members which includes her husband Avtar Singh and Brother- in-law Gurdeep Singh and others.
04. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2021 issued notice to the respondents and directed that investigation in the case in question shall proceed, however, in the event, charge-sheet is contemplated to be filed, the same shall await the orders of this Court.
05. 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 01.06.2023, which is placed on record and decided to resolve the dispute and put an end to litigation.
06. In terms of order dated 01.09.2023, the statement of the parties was directed to be recorded before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. Their statements have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial of this Court on 22.09.2023 and after being duly identified by their respective counsels.
07. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab', (2012) 10 SCC 303, after considering the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under:
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in CRM(M) No. 532/2021 Page 3 of 4 Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
01. 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.CRM(M) No. 532/2021 Page 4 of 4
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."
08. Keeping in view the compromise between the parties, 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 FIR No. 71/2020 registered at Police Station, Kana Chack, District Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 147 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is quashed.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
(Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu:
16.10.2023 Michal Sharma