Talib Hussain & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Anr

                                                                          Sr. No. 16



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         ATJAMMU


                                                   CRM(M) No. 379/2022
                                                   CrlM Nos. 778 & 1986/2022

                                                   Reserved on: 10.05.2023
                                                   Pronounced on:16.05.2023

Talib Hussain & Ors.                                                .....Petitioner(s)

                                   Through :- Mr. G S Thakur, Advocate

                             v/s
UT of J&K & Anr.                                                  .....Respondent(s)

                                   Through :- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA for R-1
                                              Mr. Shamas Ud-Din Shaaz, Adv for R-2

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                    JUDGMENT

1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC through the medium of this petition is being invoked by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No. 82/2022, registered at Police Station Poonch, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109 IPC, on the complaint of respondent No.2.

2. The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners and consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of the instant petition.

3. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties, the petitioner No.2, as also the respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 05.12.2022 were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the deed of compromise. The statements of 2 CRM(M) No.379/2022 petitioner No.2, as also the respondent No. 2 have been recorded on 05.12.2022 by the Registrar Judicial, wherein the petitioner No.2 namely, Javed Iqbal one of the accused has stated that he has amicably resolved all the disputes and issues with complainant, namely, Fatima Begum-

respondent No.2 and have reached the compromise which was recorded on 18.07.2022. He further prayed that the impugned FIR No. 82/2022 registered at Police Station Poonch, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, be quashed, in view of the compromise reached between the petitioners and respondent No.2. Similarly, respondent No.2/complainant namely Fatima Begum has also stated that she has entered into a compromise with all the petitioners and she has no objection in case the Court quashes the FIR impugned lodged at Police Station Poonch against the petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, are non-compoundable in nature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court titled "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another" reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303", wherein while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed which are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:

the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;

(i) to secure the ends of justice or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. 4 CRM(M) No.379/2022 or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding".

7. Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:

a) That the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the elder son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 was solemnized as per Muslim Law in the year 2007 and out of the said wedlock four children were born and respondent No.2 who along with her husband and the children are putting up separately having separate residence as well as the landed property. Petitioner No.4, who is the married daughter of petitioner No.1 resending in her in laws house which is at the distance of 5Km from Village Dingla, petitioner No.3 is the mother in law of respondent No.2, petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, having his separate family and is serving in Police Department as SPO.

b) That petitioner No.3 who was the only daughter of her parents and after the death she inherited all the moveable and immoveable properties of her parents, thus in order to settle the family the petitioner No.3 executed her the gift deed in favour of both of her sons i.e petitioner No.2 and husband of respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the share which she got from the petitioner No.3, earlier filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and her husband namely Mohd Ismail as well as the other petitioners for the commission of offences u/s 498-A/109 RPC, where the FIR No. 153/2015 was registered with the Police Station Poonch, however, the police after conducting the investigation found that the charges were baseless and accordingly the closure report was submitted before the Court of learned CJM Poonch and the respondent No.2 subsequently made a statement before the Court that she satisfied with the investigation, therefore, the case was closed.

c) That respondent No.2 who was having strange relationship with her husband and in order to rope all the family members she lodged another complaint against the petitioners which is impugned Fir and has roped all the family members just in order to take revenge and harass the petitioners with the motive to mount pressure so as to part with the possession of the land, which is the self acquired property of petitioner No.3. As already submitted in the preceding paragraph that the respondent No.2 who is living separately with her husband and children lodged a complaint indicating the fact that the petitioners have removed the dowry articles forcibly and the petitioners are in possession of the dowry articles of the respondent No.2.

d) That on the basis of the allegations which are levelled in the impugned FIR it does not constitute an offence punishable under sections 498-A/109 IPC and is sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for official respondent without filing objections has orally submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the same involves factual disputes which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in the case and requires a full dressed trial by the trial Court, thus prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

9. On a careful perusal of the statements of petitioner No.2 one of the accused and respondent No.2/complainant placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise, whereby they have settled their disputes/issues, so there would be no chance of conviction in future in case trial is conducted and concluded. In these facts and circumstances of the case there is no harm in allowing the parties to act upon the compromise that they have reached to secure the ends of justice.

10. The ratio of judgment of Gian Singh's case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case, rather would put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise having been arrived at with the respondent No. 2 and further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law.

11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 82/2022, registered at Police Station Poonch, against 7 CRM(M) No.379/2022 the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109 IPC, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is hereby quashed. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO Police Station Poonch, for compliance.

12. Petition, along with pending application(s), is thus disposed of, accordingly.

(M A Chowdhary) Judge JAMMU 16.05.2023 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No