Ia No. 99001/2014[D vs State Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 701 j&K

                                                                                   S. No. 227
                               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                              AT JAMMU

                                                              CRMC No. 9900008/2014
                                                              IA No. 99001/2014[D-
                                                              341/2014]
        Manohar Singh and others                                    ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                        Through :- Mr. L. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                                   Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
                       v/s          <




        State of J&K and another
        't
                                                              .....Respondent (s)

                                   Through :- None
        Coram:                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                                       ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the F.I.R.

No. 33/2013 dated 30.09.2013 registered with Police Station Women Cell, Jammu

for commission of offences under sections 498A and 109 RPC against the petitioners

at the instance of respondent No. 2.

2. On account of strained relations of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.

2, who are husband and wife respectively, respondent No. 2 has lodged F.I.R

mentioned above against the petitioners. It is submitted that with the intervention of

elders and relatives of both the parties, it was decided that the petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 shall get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent and to that

effect, an agreement dated 08.01.2014 was executed between the petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2. As per the agreement, respondent No. 2 had agreed that she would

not press the criminal complaint before the Police Station Women Cell, Jammu. It is

further submitted that pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 have already filed divorce petition by mutual consent, in which

statement of respondent No. 2 has also been recorded, as such, on the basis of

NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.15 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

compromise between the contesting parties, the petitioners have sought quashment of

F.I.R No. 33/2013.

3. Notice was issued to respondent No. 2, who appeared through Mr.

Vishal Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate but thereafter, she did

not appear before this Court and has not even filed the response.

4. Mr. L. K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Mr. Mohit Kumar,

Advocate submitted that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent

No. 2 has been dissolved by judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed by Add. District

Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu and prior to that, statement of respondent No. 2

was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu

in which she stated that she will have no objection in the event F.I.R No. 33/2013 is

quashed. Mr. L. K. Sharma, learned senior counsel has also produced photocopy of

judgment as well as the statements of the parties. The same are taken on record.

5. As the parties have entered into a compromise and the marriage between

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 stands dissolved by way of judgment dated

08.08.2014 and in the judgment, it has been specifically stated that nothing is

outstanding between the parties. In view of this, no fruitful purpose shall be served in

the event, the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued pursuant to the F.I.R

mentioned above.

6. 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 can be quashed

notwithstanding the fact that the section 498-A RPC is non-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 NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.15 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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.

7. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners

and respondent No. 2, criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 33/2013 dated

30.09.2013 registered with Police Station Women Cell, Jammu for commission of

offences under sections 498A and 109 RPC against the petitioners, are quashed.

8. Disposed of accordingly along with connected CrlM.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 12.07.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.15 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document