Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jasbir Singh And Ors vs State Of J&K And Ors on 9 October, 2024
Sr. No. 10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No.622/2019
CrlM No.1541/2024
CrlM No.1444/2019
Jasbir Singh and Ors. .... Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Prem Sadotra, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K and Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate for R-4.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
(09.10.2024)
1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section
561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 Svt. (now repealed and
hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code' for short), the petitioners have
sought the quashment of FIR No. 08/2019 dated 20.09.2019, that came to
be registered by the Police Station, Kathua under Sections 498-A, 323, 406
& 34 RPC against them inter alia on the ground that the same is the
outcome of a false and frivolous complaint filed by respondent No. 4 just to
harass and intimidate them.
2. This Court on presentation of the instant petition, vide ad interim
order dated 25.10.2019, while giving liberty to the Investigating Officer to
proceed with the investigation, directed him to await the orders of the court
for presentation of the final report/challan. The said interim order was
extended from time to time and is in force as on date.
3. Today, respondent No. 4, Manpreet Kour, D/o S. Manjeet Singh
has appeared in person, whose identity has been ascertained. She submits
that she has compromised the matrimonial dispute with the petitioners and
in this regard, petitioner No. 5 has filed an application bearing CMP No.
1541/2024 for placing on record the compromise deed. The respondent No.
4 who has filed the FIR in question against the petitioners is accompanied
by her mother. Both of them submitted that they have resolved all the
issues with the petitioners, as such, they want that the present petition filed
by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR may be allowed.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Prem Sadotra, learned counsel for the
petitioners, that Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case titled B. S. Joshi Vs.
State of Haryana; AIR (2003) SC 1386 allowed the quashment of FIR
pursuant to the mutual compromise between the husband and the wife,
leading to the dissolution of marriage.
5. I have gone through the compromise deed entered into between
petitioner No. 5 and respondent No.4 forming annexure to the CM
1541/2024. They have by way of compromise decided to dissolve their
marriage, in connection whereof a petition under the provisions of the
Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, is reported to have been filed by them before
the competent authority for decree of dissolution of marriage.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the
mutual settlement of the long pending matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner No. 5 and respondent No. 4, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it will meet the ends of justice in case this Court quashes the
FIR in question by invoking its inherent powers vested under the provisions
of Section 561-A of the Code to inter alia pass any order for securing the
ends of justice. The quashment of FIR in question is likely to set at rest
long controversy between the contesting parties.
7. Although this Court is of the opinion that an FIR and the
consequent charge-report culminating from the investigation cannot be
generally and in a routine manner allowed to be quashed in exercise of the
powers under Section 561-A of the Code corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of 1973 and Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 ('BNSS' for short), on the mere ground that the parties have settled
their controversy that had become the cause of the occurrence, yet the
provisions of Section 345 of the Code corresponding to Section 320 of the
Central Code (both repealed) and corresponding to Section 359 of the
BNSS do not restrict the powers of this Court vested in it under Section
528 of BNSS to quash the FIR and the consequent investigation process in
exceptional circumstances for furthering the cause of justice especially in
cases where the matrimonial disputes involving two families are amicably
settled subsequent to registration of the FIR.
8. Notwithstanding, the satisfaction of this Court to allow the
instant petition in the backdrop of the settlement between the parties, it is
needful to mention that in case the FIR's and the criminal cases
culminating from the investigations are allowed to be quashed in a routine
manner and at the wish of the complainants and/or accused, the criminal
justice system is likely to become a causality and the society at large will
have to bear the consequences.
9. Both the repealed Code of 1973 and the new Code of 2023 as per
the provisions respectively contained under Sections 320(9) and 359(9)
provide that no offence shall be compounded except as provided under the
said sections.
10. The provisions of the Section 320 of the Code of 1973
corresponding to the Section 359 of the new Code i.e. Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code corresponding to Section 528
of the BNSS regarding quashment of FIR's and criminal proceedings, for
the sake of the society at large, which is the real beneficiary of the criminal
justice delivery system.
11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopakumar B.
Nair Vs. CBI; (2014) 5 SCC 800 that, "Though quashment of non-
compoundable offence under Section 482 Cr. P.C. following settlement
between parties would not amount to circumvention of Section 320, but
such power has to be exercised with care and caution and would depend on
facts of each case."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioners has almost under similar situation allowed the
quashment of FIR that was also registered on the complaint of wife
pursuant to the mutual settlement of the parties leading to dissolution of
marriage.
13. It is profitable to reproduce the relevant paras of the authoritative
judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners:
"There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-
A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to
prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives
of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture
the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be
counterproductive and would act against interests of women
and against the object for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to
quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter
XX-A of Indian Penal Code.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings
or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit
or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
14. For the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is allowed and
the impugned FIR along with the investigation proceedings conducted
pursuant to the registration of the same by the respondent No.
3/Investigating Officer of the case is quashed.
15. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed
of along with connected CM(s).
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
JAMMU
09.10.2024
Eva
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.
