Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bharat Bhushan Sharma & vs State Of J&K & Ors on 29 March, 2021
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 157/2017
MP No. 01/2017
Bharat Bhushan Sharma & .... Petitioner(s)
ors.
Through:- Mr. Surinder Singh,
Advocate
V/s
State of J&K & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Respondent No. 3 present
in person
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
01. The inherent powers of this Court have been invoked by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 116/2016 alongwith criminal challans No. 103 titled State vs. Bharat Bhushan & ors. under Section 498-A RPC pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu.
02. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3-Pinky Raina was solemnized on 12.12.2006. That difference arose between the two and as a result of marital discord, FIR No. 116/2016 was registered at Police Station Satwari, by the complainant (respondent No. 3 herein) against the petitioners. These proceedings were culminated into a challan and the same are now pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu.
03. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 with the intervention of elders during the pendency of the proceedings have decided to settle their dispute amicably outside the Court. They have entered 2 CRMC No. 157/2017 into a Compromise with each other on 28.02.2019 and have mutually decided to resolve their entire dispute.
04. In terms of the said compromise, they have decided to settle all their differences so that they could live peacefully in society. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 are present in Court today, their statement have been recorded today by the Registrar Judicial of this Court and are duly identified by the counsel for the petitioners.
05. The issue whether inherent power can be exercised in quashing criminal cases which arise out of matrimonial relationship was considered by the Apex Court Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi&anr., 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."
06. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh &ors. versus State of Punjab &ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466, vide which the guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.03, 29.04 & 29.05 are reproduced below:- 3 CRMC No. 157/2017
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.
29.04 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.
29.05 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.
07. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offences 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. 3 has no objection if challan as stated above is quashed.
08. The continuation of proceedings in this case in view of the genuine settlement will cause grave injustice to the parties as they are no longer interested in pursuing the same and possibility to conviction is also bleak.
09. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 116/2016 alongwith criminal challans No. 4 CRMC No. 157/2017 103 titled State vs. Bharat Bhushan & ors. under Section 498-A RPC pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, are quashed.
10. Application also stands disposed of.
(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 29.03.2021 Ram Murti Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No RAM MURTI 2021.04.01 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document