Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Haleema Begum Aged 84 Years vs Union Territory Of J&K on 28 February, 2024

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

                                                               Serial No. 02


 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU
Case:-    CRM(M) No. 93/2024
          CrlM No. 205/2024
          CrlM No. 206/2024

  1. Haleema Begum Aged 84 years                     .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
     W/o Syed Showkat Hussain
     R/o Shari Bhat, Alamgari Bazar,     Srinagar.

  2. Syed Tauqeer Showkat Aged 61 years
     S/o Late Syed Showkat Hussain
     R/o Shari Bhat, Alamgari Bazar, Srinagar.

  3. Zeenat Ara Aged 80 years
     W/o Late Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi
     R/o Gasiyar, Hawal, Srinagar.

  4. Masooma Hussain Aged 46 years
     W/o Agha Syed Asif Jehangir
     R/o Gasiyar, Hawal, Srinagar.

  5. Beeba Bano Aged 23 years
     D/o Ashiq Hussain
     R/o Trukalbal, Pattan, Baramulla.

  6. Syed Ashar Aged 8 years (minor)
     Through their mother
     Masooma Hussain
     R/o Gasiyar, Hawal, Srinagar.

  7. Syed Asad Aged 13 years (minor)
     Through their mother
     Masooma Hussain
     R/o Gasiyar, Hawal, Srinagar.

  8. Sabahat Syed Aged 54 years
     W/o Syed Tauqeer Showkat
     D/o Late Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi
     R/o Shari Bhat, Alamgari Bazar, Srinagar.

  9. Gazala Syed Aged 49 years
     W/o Aga Syed Mehmood
     D/o Late Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi
     R/o Qadeem Masjid Lan, Lal Bazar,
     Srinagar.

 10. Agha Syed Asif Jahangir Aged 46 years
     S/o Late Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi
     R/o Gasiyar, Alamgari Bazar, Srinagar.



                      Through: Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq, Advocate.

                 Vs

  1. Union Territory of J&K
     through Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department,
     Government of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

  2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Lakhanpur,
     District Kathua, Jammu.
                              2                 CRM(M) No. 93/2024
                                               CrlM No. 205/2024
                                               CrlM No. 206/2024


                                                   ..... Respondent(s)

                Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                             ORDER

(28.02.2024)

01. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C read with Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners herein seek

quashment of FIR No. 07/2023 and consequent charge-

sheet filed thereto before the court of Special Mobile

Magistrate, Kathua for offences under Sections 279, 337 &

304-A IPC.

02. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners on

05.02.2023, the petitioners 1 to 7 herein along with one

Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi S/o Late Syed Hussain R/o

Gasiyar, Hawal, Srinagar while travelling from Lakhanpur

towards Jammu in a vehicle bearing registration No.

JK01T-3911 driven by petitioner 2 herein met with an

accident near Kohli Wine Shop Lakhanpur caused due to

the invisibility of the road divider constructed on the

highway and in the said accident, the petitioners 1 to 7

herein including the above named Agha Syed Mohammad

Taqi sustained injuries whereafter the said Agha Syed

Mohammad Taqi died in the hospital at Jammu on the very

same day, on account of the injuries sustained by him.

03. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, FIR

No. 07/2023 came to be registered by respondent 2 qua the

accident for commission of offences under Sections 279 &

337 IPC, whereafter on account of the death of the above

named Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi, the offence under

Section 304-A also came to be incorporated in the said FIR.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all

the petitioners herein except petitioner 5 herein are blood

relatives and petitioners 4 and 8 to 10 herein are, in fact,

the legal heirs of the deceased Agha Syed Mohammad Taqi

along with Mst. Zeenat Ara who is the widow of the

deceased and, as such, that being so, the petitioners have

decided not to pursue the criminal case arising out of the

aforesaid FIR pending before the court of Special Mobile

Magistrate, Kathua being blood relatives as also in view of

the fact that the accident did not happen due to any act of

omission or commission of the driver of the vehicle being

petitioner 2 herein, as such, the petitioners herein have

executed a compromise deed dated 29.05.2023 in this

regard and as a consequence thereof seek the quashment of

the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet in the light of the

judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case titled as

"Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr." reported in 2012

10 SCC 303 and "Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of

Punjab & Anr." reported in 2014 6 SCC 466.

05. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG, on asking of the

Court, enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. Mr.

Sharma is not averse to the disposal of the petition at this

stage, however, would contend that the FIR/Charge-sheet

would be quashed only, in case, the petitioner's case is

covered under the guidelines provided by the Apex court in

the aforesaid judgments.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

06. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be

pertinent to refer to the following judgments of the Apex

Court and the principles laid down therein

In "Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr." reported in

2012(10) SCC 303, at para 61 it has been noticed as

under:-

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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 basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the 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 of 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".

and "Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Anr." reported

in 2017 (9) SCC 641, para 16, it has been noticed as

under:-

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an

offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-

compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

07. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and propositions

of law laid down by the Apex Court and having regard to

the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove inasmuch

as in view of the amicable settlement between the parties,

the possibility of conviction of the accused in the aforesaid

criminal case is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal case rather would put the accused petitioner/s to

great oppression and extreme injustice and would be unfair

and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence,

would amount to abuse of process of law.

08. Having regard to the aforesaid position, it would be

appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to