Vijay Kumar And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 552 j&K

                                                                              89



     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                                   CRM(M) No. 122/2023

Vijay Kumar and ors.                               .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


q
                       Through: Mr. Sahil Bavoria, Advocate
                 vs
UT of J&K and Ors.                                            ..... Respondent(s)
                       Through: None

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

                               ORDER (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the

petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 34/2021 for commission of offences under

sections 498-A, 406, 420, 354 & 109 IPC registered with the Police Station,

Women Cell, Jammu at the instance of respondent No.3.

2. The quashment of the aforesaid FIR has been sought on the ground that

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 are husband and wife respectively and

they have decided to end all the litigations pending between them. They have

also decided to mutually dissolve the marriage between them. It has been

further stated that they have filed a joint petition under Section 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act in the Court of learned Principal Judge Family Court, Jammu and

statement of first motion has been recorded.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have placed on record copy of

joint petition filed under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, copy

compromise deed dated 05.12.2022 executed between petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 3. The statements of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have

been recorded before the Registrar Judicial, wherein they have stated that they

have resolved all the disputes and issues with each other amicably. Further,

respondent No. 3 has stated that she has no objection in case the impugned FIR

lodged by her is quashed.

4. So far as the facts alleged in the petitions, particularly those pertaining

to the compromise arrived at between them and statements recorded before the

Registrar Judicial, are concerned, the same are not disputed. In the backdrop of

aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether this Court can quash the

proceedings, particularly when the offences alleged to have been committed by

petitioners are non-compoundable in nature.

5. It needs to be noted here that Sections 498-A, 354 IPC are non-

compoundable, whereas sections 406 and 420, IPC are compoundable.

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.

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.

(See also the State of Madhya Pardesh V. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC

688).

7. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner No.

1 and respondent No. 3 and for the reasons stated above, FIR No. 34/2021 for

commission of offences under sections 498-A, 406, 420, 354 & 109 IPC

registered with the Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu at the instance of

respondent No. 3, is quashed.

8. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

Jammu 27.03.2023 Karam Chand/Secy.