Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dharam Paul vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 31 March, 2021
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 292/2020
CrlM No. 1064/2020
Dharam Paul .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Mohd. Arshad
Chowdhary, Advocate for
R-5
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
01. Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Traffic), Kathua in case titled State vs. Dharam Paul arising out of FIR No. 115/2018 dated 26.03.2018 and Challan No. 92/2018 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 294 RPC.
02. The facts as stated in this petition are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5 were married on 18.03.2006 but subsequently after some time, the relationship between them was not cordial and this discard resulted into the differences. This also resulted in litigation between the parties and an FIR No. 115/2018 was registered at Police Station Kathua, by the complainant (respondent No. 5 herein) against the petitioner. These proceedings were culminated into a challan and the same are now pending in the Court of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate (Traffic), Kathua.
03. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably with their intervention of the elders 2 CRM(M) No. 292/2020 outside the Court. They have also sought divorce from each other by mutual consent which has been granted to them by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu on 17.10.2020. They have also entered into a Compromise with each other and executed a compromise deed on 20.01.2021 which is placed on record and decided to resolve all disputes and put an end to litigation.
04. In terms of the said compromise, it is stated that they parties have settled their dispute so that they could live peacefully in society. Both the parties are present in Court today, their statement have been recorded today by the Registrar Judicial of this Court and are 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 & 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. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 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 3 CRM(M) No. 292/2020 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 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 & 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."
07. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioner 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. 5 has no objection if challans and the 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 4 CRM(M) No. 292/2020 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 proceeding in case titled State vs. Dharam Paul arising out of FIR No. 115/2018 dated 26.03.2018 and Challan No. 92/2018registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 294 RPC pending before the Court of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate (Traffic), Kathua, are quashed.
10. Application is also stands disposed of.
(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 31.03.2021 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