Talib Hussain & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 976 j&K

                                                                          Sr. No. 16



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         ATJAMMU


                                                   CRM(M) No. 379/2022
                                                   CrlM Nos. 778 & 1986/2022

                                                   Reserved on: 10.05.2023
                                                   Pronounced on:16.05.2023

Talib Hussain & Ors.                                                .....Petitioner(s)

                                   Through :- Mr. G S Thakur, Advocate

                             v/s
UT of J&K & Anr.                                                  .....Respondent(s)

                                   Through :- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA for R-1
                                              Mr. Shamas Ud-Din Shaaz, Adv for R-2

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                    JUDGMENT

1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC through the

medium of this petition is being invoked by the petitioners seeking

quashment of FIR No. 82/2022, registered at Police Station Poonch, against

the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 109 IPC, on the complaint of respondent No.2.

2. The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their

disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIR registered against

the petitioners and consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of

the instant petition.

3. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties, the petitioner

No.2, as also the respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 05.12.2022 were

directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their

statements in support of the deed of compromise. The statements of

petitioner No.2, as also the respondent No. 2 have been recorded on

05.12.2022 by the Registrar Judicial, wherein the petitioner No.2 namely,

Javed Iqbal one of the accused has stated that he has amicably resolved all

the disputes and issues with complainant, namely, Fatima Begum-

respondent No.2 and have reached the compromise which was recorded on

18.07.2022. He further prayed that the impugned FIR No. 82/2022

registered at Police Station Poonch, against the petitioners for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, be

quashed, in view of the compromise reached between the petitioners and

respondent No.2. Similarly, respondent No.2/complainant namely Fatima

Begum has also stated that she has entered into a compromise with all the

petitioners and she has no objection in case the Court quashes the FIR

impugned lodged at Police Station Poonch against the petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 relied upon

the judgment of the Supreme Court titled "Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Another" reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303", wherein 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

which are non-compoundable in nature, 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".

7. Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:

a) That the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the elder son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 was solemnized as per Muslim Law in the year 2007 and out of the said wedlock four children were born and respondent No.2 who along with her husband and the children are putting up separately having separate residence as well as the landed property. Petitioner No.4, who is the married daughter of petitioner No.1 resending in her in laws house which is at the distance of 5Km from Village Dingla, petitioner No.3 is the mother in law of respondent No.2, petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, having his separate family and is serving in Police Department as SPO.

b) That petitioner No.3 who was the only daughter of her parents and after the death she inherited all the moveable and immoveable properties of her parents, thus in order to settle the family the petitioner No.3 executed her the gift deed in favour of both of her sons i.e petitioner No.2 and husband of respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the share which she got from the petitioner No.3, earlier filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and her husband namely Mohd Ismail as well as the other petitioners for the commission of offences u/s 498-A/109 RPC, where the FIR No. 153/2015 was registered with the Police Station Poonch, however, the police after conducting the investigation found that the charges were baseless and accordingly the closure report was submitted before the Court of learned CJM Poonch and the respondent No.2 subsequently made a statement before the Court that she satisfied with the investigation, therefore, the case was closed.

c) That respondent No.2 who was having strange relationship with her husband and in order to rope all the family members she lodged another complaint against the petitioners which is impugned Fir and has roped all the family members just in order to take revenge and harass the petitioners with the motive to mount pressure so as to part with the possession of the land, which is the self acquired property of petitioner No.3. As already submitted in the preceding paragraph that the respondent No.2 who is living separately with her husband and children lodged a complaint indicating the fact that the petitioners have removed the dowry articles forcibly and the petitioners are in possession of the dowry articles of the respondent No.2.

d) That on the basis of the allegations which are levelled in the impugned FIR it does not constitute an offence punishable under sections 498-A/109 IPC and is sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for official respondent without filing objections has orally

submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the same involves

factual disputes which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in the

case and requires a full dressed trial by the trial Court, thus prayed for

dismissal of the present petition.

9. On a careful perusal of the statements of petitioner No.2 one of the accused

and respondent No.2/complainant 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 in future in case

trial is conducted and concluded. In these facts and circumstances of the

case there is no harm in allowing the parties to act upon the compromise

that they have reached to secure the ends of justice.

10. The ratio of judgment of Gian Singh's case (supra) makes the legal

proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if

the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Thus, in

view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of

conviction of the petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal case, rather would put the petitioners to great oppression and

extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise

having been arrived at with the respondent No. 2 and further continuation

of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and

contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of

process of law.

11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and

the impugned FIR No. 82/2022, registered at Police Station Poonch, against

the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 109 IPC, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is

hereby quashed. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO Police Station

Poonch, for compliance.

12. Petition, along with pending application(s), is thus disposed of,

accordingly.

(M A Chowdhary) Judge

JAMMU 16.05.2023 Vijay

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