Sukhdev Kour & Ors vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1570 j&K

                                                                    Sr.No. 1


HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                   AT JAMMU

                                                CRM (M) No. 809/2021
                                                CrlM No. 510/2021

                                              Reserved on: 21.07.2023
                                             Pronounced on:10.08.2023

Sukhdev Kour & Ors.                                             ....Petitioner(s)

                    Through:- Mr. Raghubir Singh, Advocate

                                          V/S
Union territory of J&K & Ors                               .... Respondent(s)
                   Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

                                 JUDGMENT

1. By invoking the inherent powers jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the 'Code'), petitioners by instant petition seek quashment of FIR No. 78/2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered against them in Police Station Sunderbani for the commission of offence punishable under sections 458, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.4 directing respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioners in a false and frivolous case and also produce the reports in the FIR No. 68/2021 dated 18.07.2021 registered against Noor Hussain, Afasra Bi and others conducted during earlier investigation and to disclose before this Court as to what steps were taken by him during investigation before registering FIR against the petitioners after receipt of false and frivolous complaint filed by Afsra Bi.

2. Brief facts of the case are, that petitioner No.1 is elected Sarpanch of Panchyat Halqa Marchola Block Siot, petitioner No.2 is Ph.D research Scholar and petitioner No.3 is B.Sc Radiology were implicated in a false and frivolous case filed by one Afsra Bi and respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry lodged impugned FIR under sections 458, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC against the petitioners on instigating by respondent

No.5 (ex-sarpanch) to respondent No.7; that the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 are residents of same Panchyat and had rivalry on issues of election contested by petitioner No.1 and wife of respondent No.5 being reserved constituency for women; complainant Afsra Bi and her family recently resident of Surankote Drabha now putting up in Panchyat Marchola on Forest Land are neighbors of respondents 5 to 7 and have land disputes over a piece of Forest land which was illegally occupied by Noor Hussain; petitioner No.1 being Sarpanch of the area having every right to inform the Govt. officials regarding the activities held in the Panchyat; with that revenge full mindset Afsra Bi filed as application against petitioners before respondent No.3, who had lodged FIR No. 78 dated 18.08.2021 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 458, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC against the petitioners in order to drag them into false litigation with a revenge on the issues of election contested, whereas the police has already looking into the matter in FIR No. 68/2021 dated 18.07.2021 lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent No. 4 and others; the grounds projected in the application are false and vague as such on the false grounds mentioned in the application which is a false story and allegations projected in the application by Afsra Bi on the instructions of Vipon Paul @ Veepttu i.e respondent No.5 seems not to be genuine and justified against the petitioner which causes un due harassment to the petitioners.

3. Being aggrieved of the impugned FIR and the investigation being carried out by respondent No.3 in the said case, petitioners have challenged the same on the following grounds:

a) that allegation leveled against the petitioners in a complaint filed by Afsra Bi is an abuse of the process of law, inherently improvable and suffers from legal defects, flaws.

b) that impugned FIR No. 78/2021 under Sections 458, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC has been registered by the respondent No.1 in a manner which is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence, the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

c) that the respondent No.3 is fully apprised about the commission of crime which has already been investigated with regard to crime which was not committed by the petitioners despite being made aware of the actual circumstances under which the Afsra Bi has filed a false and concocted complaint against the petitioners, the police of Police Station Sunderbani conducted investigation against the petitioners found nothing incriminating evidences against the petitioners. The concerned

SHO although committed an irregularity of conducting the investigation against the petitioners is concerned.

d) the petitioners have no concern with the incident and the said Afsra Bi has falsely implicating them due toearlier forest land dispute, election rivalry with respondent No.5 and is trying to produce the false witness.

e) that from bare perusal of the story as projected in the complaint clearly shows that the petitioners are no manner involved in any of the alleged incident nor was present at the alleged place of occurrence, despite that they have been unnecessarily roped into the alleged crime. It clearly shows that the respondent No.3 has used the complaint filed by Afsra Bi as a tool to harass and cause prejudice to the petitioners. This aspect of the case has also not been appreciated or looked by the respondent No.3 which renders the impugned FIR totally illegal and liable to be quashed.

f) that the respondents 5 to 7 are highhandedness persons having links with higher officials on their instruction FIR was lodged against the petitioner, they are involved in many illegal activities and had LB-6-432 (400K) forest land was occupied by them but they are not implicated in any offence due to their higher approach inasmuch as they run a illegal Gun Factory in the name and style Umer Din Gun Factory Marcholla, transports illegal Arms, recently in Gujarat some persons were arrested having in possession of illegal Arms which was prepared by them and they are master mind behind lodging of FIR against the petitioners.

4. During pendency of this petition a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.4. In view of the amicable outside court settlement and compromised they have decided to close the cases against each other.

5. The instant petition supported by an affidavit of the petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2023, contesting parties were directed to record their statements before the Registrar Judicial of this Court in view of the compromise arrived at between them. In this regard, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of petitioners 1 & 3 and respondent No.4, the same are placed on record which read as under:-

Statement of Sukhdev Kour (petitioner no.1); Age: 53 years; W/o Late Jarnail Singh; R/o Ward No. 7, Marcholla, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri on oath today i.e 24.04.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Afsra Bi (respondent no.4). In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before Hon'ble Court to quash FIR No. 78/2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered against me at Police Station Sunderbani,

Rajouri by Afsra Bi (respondent no.4) for commission of offences under section 458, 323, 405, 506 and 427 IPC.

Statement of Harneek Singh (petitioner no. 3), Age:27; S/o Late Jarnail Singh: R/o Ward No. 7, Marcholla, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri on oath today i.e 24.04.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Afsra Bi (respondent no.4). In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before Hon'ble Court to quash FIR No. 78/2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered against me at Police Station Sunderbani, Rajouri by Afsra Bi (respondent no.4) for commission of offences under section 458, 323, 405, 506 and 427 IPC.

Statement of Afsra Bi (respondent no.4), Age:59; W/o Noor Hussain R/o Ward No. 2, Marcholla, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri on oath today i.e 24.04.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Sukhdev Kour (petitioner no.1), Gurjinder Kour (petitioner no.2) and Harneek Singh (petitioner no.3). Further, I have no grievance against the petitioners and I do not want to pursue the FIR filed by me against the petitioners. In view of our amicable settlement, I have no objection in case Hon'ble Court quashes FIR No. 78/2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered by me against petitioners at Police Station Sunderbani, Rajouri by Afsra Bi (respondent no.4) for commission of offences under section 458, 323, 405, 506 and 427 IPC

7. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioners placed on record demonstrates that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences. 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.

8. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CPC in paras 1, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16 held as under :

"1.The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved

either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

3.The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1999 SC 2181].

11.In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

14.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15.In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

16.For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."

9. Ratio of the judgment of B. S. Joshi's case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Ratio of judgment (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

10. In the case in hand the parties have arrived at a compromise, so there would be no chance of conviction in near future in case trial is held and concluded.

11. In view of the above, the instant petition stands allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 78/2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered against the petitioners in Police Station Sunderbani for the commission of offence punishable under sections 458, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC is hereby quashed, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

12. Copy of this order be sent to SHO Police Station, Sunderbani for compliance.

(Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu:

10.08.2023
Vijay                   Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
                      Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No