Atul Sharma vs State Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 751 j&K

                                                                                     S. No. 206
                           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                           AT JAMMU

                                                               CRMC No. 307/2012
                                                               IA No. 363/2012

        Atul Sharma                                                   ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                        Through :- Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate
                       v/s          <




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

                                   Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG


        Coram:                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                                        ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Charge

Sheet No. 103/2006 dated 26.12.2006 arising out of FIR bearing No. 99 dated

09.08.2006 on the ground that the contesting parties have settled their dispute

regarding which they had executed a mutual divorce deed and subsequently, the

petitioner had also filed petition for grant of divorce before the court of learned

Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu and the court of learned

Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu vide judgment dated

28.07.2011 has dissolved the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 by

decree of divorce. It is further submitted that statement of the respondent No. 2 was

also recorded before the court of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial

Cases), Jammu in which she had admitted the claim of petitioner with regard to the

grant of divorce.

2. Mr. Kamal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits

that the respondent No. 2 has also received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total for the

purpose of her claim vis-a-vis stridhan and other expenditure.

NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.26 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG has vehemently argued that the

parties have not settled the dispute and as such, this is the fit case in which the

petition is required to be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. Without commenting upon the validity of so called mutual divorce deed,

it is evident that the respondent No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total

from the petitioner and also agreed to withdraw all the cases. Though, the marriage

cannot be dissolved by this deed but still it can be looked into for collateral purposes.

It is stated in the mutual divorce deed that she has received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-

and further in her testimony before the learned Additional District Judge

(Matrimonial Cases), Jammu, she has specifically stated that she has ceased to have

any relation whatsoever with the petitioner.

6. From the record, it is evident that respondent No. 2 had appeared in

person before this Court on 27.12.2012 as it is evident from the report of the Registry

but thereafter, she has neither caused her appearance nor has filed any response, as

such, it can be safely presumed that she has got nothing to say so as to oppose the

claim of the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the Charge Sheet reveals that the only offences for which

petitioner has been charged are 498-A and 323 RPC out of which, only offence under

section 498-A is not compoundable.

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled their dispute

once for all and that is the reason respondent No. 2 has not chosen to object the

present petition.

NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.26 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

9. 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 RPC 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

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.

10. So far as, contention of Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG is

concerned, no doubt that is attractive but is bound to be rejected.

11. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and

respondent No. 2, criminal proceedings in Charge Sheet No. 103/2006 dated

26.12.2006 arising out of F.I.R. No. 99 dated 09.08.2006 for commission of offences

under sections 498A and 323 RPC pending before the court of learned Electricity

Magistrate, Jammu against the petitioners, are quashed.

12. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected

IA.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 23.07.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

NEHA KUMARI 2021.07.26 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document