Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Dr. Najeeb Ahmadthakur & Anr vs Ut Of J&K on 20 May, 2022
Sr. No.43
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No.68/2022
CrlM No.244/2021
DR. NAJEEB AHMADTHAKUR & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Rizwan vice Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
20.05.2022
1) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking
quashment of FIR No.86/2020 for offences under Section 279 and 337
IPC registered with Police Station, Hirpora Shopian.
2) As per the contents of the impugned FIR, on 01.12.2020, Police
Station, Hirpora Shopian, received an information from reliable
sources that a truck bearing No.JK22-8911, which was being driven
by unknown driver, near Pudsoo Shopian, hit a pedestrian, namely,
Najeeb Ahmad Thakur (petitioner No.1 herein) who got injured and
was taken to hospital by the pedestrians. Upon receiving this
information, the FIR was lodged and investigation was set into
motion. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C were
CrlM No.244/2022
recorded and offending vehicle was seized and the accused (petitioner
No.2 herein) was arrested.
3) It seems that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings,
a compromise was arrived at between injured and the accused
(petitioners herein). As per the compromise deed, the parties have
settled their disputes amicably and stated in the compromise deed that
the injured does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. The parties to
the dispute i.e., petitioners herein have also made statements before
the Registrar Judicial on 30.03.2022, wherein they have admitted the
contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.
4) Petitioners have contended that so far as the case arising out of
FIR No.86/2020, is concerned, the same could not be compounded
because the offence under Section 279 IPC disclosed in the impugned
FIR is non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that
the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of
the aforesaid FIR.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
record of the case.
6) So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those
pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms
of the compromise deed, are concerned, the same are not disputed.
7) In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to
whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly
CrlM No.244/2022
when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the
petitioner are non-compoundable in nature. It is a settled law that the
offences arising out of the disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceedings, particularly when, as a consequence of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility
of securing conviction of the accused. In these circumstances, it would
amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived
at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. In
my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another,(2012)
10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr,
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
8) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the
petitioners herein have entered into a compromise wherein the injured
has categorically stated that he is not willing to pursue the impugned
FIR. The offence under Section 279 IPC, though non-compoundable,
is not of a grave nature. Therefore, if an end is not put to the criminal
proceedings, it would amount to grave injustice to the petitioners and,
in fact, it will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise
that has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of
criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances,
will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
CrlM No.244/2022
9) Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is
allowed. Accordingly, FIR No.86/2020 for offences under Section
279 and 337 IPC registered with Police Station, Hirpora Shopian, is
quashed.
10) Petition shall stand disposed of along with connected CMs.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
20.05.2022
"Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
