Harpreet Singh Aged 40 Years vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 971 j&K

                                                        S. No. 9
                                                        Supp Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                            AT JAMMU
                           CRM(M) No. 185/2023 CrLM No. 336/2023
                                           Reserved on: 24.04.2023
                                        Pronounced on:16 .05.2023
1. Harpreet Singh aged 40 years                     ...Petitioner(s)
    S/o Late S Manjeet Singh
    R/o H No. 20 Sector D, Dashmesh Nagar
    Digiana Jammu.
2.   Tarwinder Singh aged 37 years
     S/o S Darshan Singh
     R/o Marot Bera Kalakote District Rajouri.
3.   Jatinder Singh aged 26 years
     S/o Yudhvir Singh
     R/o H No. 44, Ajit Nagar Upper Gadigarh
     Jammu.
4.   Ravinder Singh aged 32 years
     S/o Amar Singh
     R/o Chandian Akhnoor Jammu.
5.   Ravi Kumar aged 30 years
     S/o Randev Kumar
     R/o Dasgal Akhnoor Jammu.
Through: M/s Pooja Jamwal, Manjit Singh Sarkaria and Gagandeep
         Singh, Advocates.
                               Vs.
1. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir               ...Respondent(s)
   through Incharge/SHO Police Station Akhnoor
   Jammu.
2. Mandeep Singh
   S/o Sukhdev Soingh
   R/o Ravli Tehsil Bijnore(UP)
   At present Jammu.
3. Sukhwinder Singh
   S/o Suvinder Singh
   R/o Nukerian District Hoshiarpur Punjab
   At present Jammu
Through: Mr Pawan Dev Singh, DyAG for R 1
         Mr T. R. Wani, Advocate for R 2 and 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
                             JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No. 230/2021 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325,

201 IPC registered against them with Police Station Akhnoor Jammu, alongwith challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class Akhnoor. It is averred, that the petitioners are peace loving and law abiding citizens of Jammu and Kashmir against whom false and frivolous FIR above mentioned has been registered, however, they have entered into compromise with respondents 2 & 3, therefore, the aforesaid FIR and the consequential proceedings pending in the trial Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Akhnoor be quashed. The petition is supported by an affidavit which makes a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioners.

2. Respondents 2 & 3 and petitioners have placed on record compromise deed dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure-II) which has been duly sighed by the parties and execution thereof has been attested by Notary Public Jammu. In support of the aforesaid compromise deed, respondents and petitioners have got their statements recorded on oath before this Court which read as under.

Statement of Harpreet Singh (petitioner No. 1) Age 40 years S/o late. S. Manjeet Singh, R/o H. No. 20, Sector D, Dashmesh Nagar, Digiana, jammu on oath today i.e 06.03.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) and Sukhvinder Singh (respondent No 3). A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon‟ble court to quash FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

Statement of Tarwinder Singh, (petitioner No. 2) age 36 years; S/o S. Darshan Singh, R/o Marot Bera, Kalakote, Distric Rajouri on oath today i.e 06.03.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) and Sukhvinder Singh (respondent No 3). A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon‟ble

court to quash FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

Statement of Jatinder Singh (petitioner No. 3 Age 26 years S/o Yudhvir Singh R/o H. No. 44 Ajit Nagar, Upper Gadigarh Jammu on oath today i.e 06.03.2023.

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) and Sukhvinder Singh (respondent No 3). A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon‟ble court to quash FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor. Statement of Ravinder Singh (petitioner No. 4) Age 32 years S/o Amar Singh R/o Chandian Akhnoor Jammu on oath today i.e 06.03.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) and Sukhvinder Singh (respondent No 3). A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon‟ble court to quash FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

Statement of Ravi Kumar (petitner No. 5) Age 30 years, S/o Randev Kumar R/o Dasgal Akhnoor Jammu on oath today i.e. 06.03.2023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) and Sukhvinder Singh (respondent No 3). A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon‟ble court to quash FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No.

104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

3. Furthermore, respondents 2 & 3 have also got their statements record on oath before this Court which read as under: Statement of Mandeep Singh (respondent No. 2) age 36 years S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Ravli Tehsil Bijnore Uttar Pradesh on oath today i.e. 06.03.023:

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with petitioners. A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. Further I have no grievance against the petitioners. In view of our amicable settlement, I have no objection in case Hon‟ble Court quashes FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

Statement of Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3 ) age 29 years S/o Suvinder Singh R/o Nukerina District Hoshiarpur Punjab A/P Jammu on oath today i.e. 06.03.2023.

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with petitioners. A compromise deed, duly attested on 28.02.2023 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. Further I have no grievance against the petitioners. In view of our amicable settlement, I have no objection in case Hon‟ble Court quashes FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 lodged at Police Station, Akhnoor for commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC and consequent challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor.

4. In a case titled, "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another"

[2012 (10) SCC 303] while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:

the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;

(i) to secure the ends of justice or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim‟s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding".

5. Ratio of the judgment of „Gian Singh‟s case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice subject to the parameters that, if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise, if the application/petition is made at an earliest stage even though charge sheet has been filed but charges are yet to be framed and trial has not commenced and even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead it will end in nothing else

than an acquittal. Ratio of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their disputes/issues, so there would be no chance of conviction of accused in near future in case trial is held and concluded.

6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 230/2021 dated 12.09.2021 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 382, 325, 201 IPC registered against petitioners/accused with Police Station Akhnoor Jammu, alongwith challan/final report bearing No. 104/2022 dated 07.07.2022 pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Akhnoor, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is, hereby quashed.

7. Disposed of accordingly along with all connected CM(s).

8. Copy of this order be forthwith sent to the Court below/SHO concerned for information and compliance.

(MOHAN LAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.05.2023 Ishaq Whether the judgement is speaking ? Yes/No Whether the judgement is reportable ? Yes/No