Neeraj Badyal & Ors vs Ut Of J&K &Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 74 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No.7
                                                                 Regular List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT JAMMU


                         CRM(M) No.188/2021


NEERAJ BADYAL & ORS.                  ... PETITIONER(S)

                   Through: -   Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K &ANOTHER                           ...RESPONDENT(S)
                   Through: -   Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                         JUDGMENT(ORAL)

02.02.2023

1) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment

of FIR No.0024 dated 09.02.2021 for offences under Section 498-A, 313,

504, 56, 147 and 323 of IPC registered with P/S Nawabad Jammu.

2) As per the contents of the impugned FIR, respondent No. 2, wife of

petitioner No.1 was subjected to mental torture, cruelty and harassment by

the accused/petitioners. It is further alleged that the complainant was

beaten up by her in-laws as a result of which she took an extreme step and

consumed poisonous substance in the month of December, 2015, and was

finally forcibly thrown out of her matrimonial home. On the basis of this

report, the impugned FIR was lodged and investigation was set into

motion. During the course of investigation, the offences under Section

498-A, 504, 506, 323 and 147of IPC were found established against the

accused.

Page |2

3) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a

compromise has been arrived at between the partieson 20.10.2022 and as

per the said compromise, the parties i.e., complainant and the accused

have settled their disputes amicably. It is stated in the compromise deed

dated 20.10.2022 that the complainant i.e., respondent No.2 herein, has no

grievance against the accused/petitioners and that she does not want to

pursue the criminal case. The complainant-respondent No.2 and petitioner

No.1 have made statements before the Registrar Judicial today on

10.11.2022, wherein they have admitted the aforesaid position.

4) The petitioners have contended that so far as the case arising out of

FIR No.0024 dated 09.02.2021, is concerned, the same could not be

compounded because some of the offences disclosed therein are non-

compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners

have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the aforesaid charge

sheet.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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, are concerned, the

same are not disputed. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question

arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings,

particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by

petitioners are non-compoundable in nature.

Page |3

7) It is a settled law that the offences arising out of matrimony relating

to dowry or the family 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 if it is shown that because of the compromise arrived at

between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of

the accused. 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 parties

to the matrimonial dispute i.e., the petitioner No.1 and the complainant

(respondent No. 2 herein), have entered into a compromise. Merely

because some of offence alleged in the FIR are non-compoundable in

nature, 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.

9) Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is

allowed and FIR No. 0024 dated 09.02.2021 for offences under Section

498-A, 504, 506, 323 and 147 of IPC registered with Police Station, Page |4

Nawabad Jammu, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, as against the

petitioners, are quashed.

10) The petition is disposed of in above terms.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

Jammu, 02.02.2023 "Sahil Padha"

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