Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Anchal Sharma And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 16 October, 2024
Sr. No. 89
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 356/2022
Anchal Sharma and Ors. .... Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K and Anr. ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocate for R-2
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
(16.10.2024)
1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as
the 'Code'), the petitioners have sought the quashment of FIR No.
0028/2021 dated 03.02.2021, that came to be registered by the Police
Station, Satwari under Sections 279/337/504 IPC against them on the
complaint of respondent No.2.
2. This Court on presentation of the instant petition, vide ad interim
order dated 06.05.2022, 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.
3. Today, respondent No. 2, Geeta Devi W/o Late Sh. Parshotam
Dass R/o Rohi Morh Gadigarh, Jammu appeared in person, whose identity
has been ascertained. She submitted that she has compromised the dispute
with the petitioners which was the outcome of the matrimonial discard
between the daughter of the petitioner No.3, namely, Arzoo Sharma and
her son, namely, Ajay Sharma. The respondent No. 2, who has filed the
FIR in question, submitted that she has resolved all the issues with the
petitioners, as such, she wants that the present petition filed by the
petitioners for quashment of the FIR may be allowed. She submitted that
Arzoo Sharma and Ajay Sharma have through mutual settlement resolved
to dissolve their marriage in connection whereof, they have filed an
application for decree of dissolution of marriage before the concerned
court.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Jatinder Singh, 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. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the fact that parties have decided to dissolve the marriage between one of
the daughters of the petitioner No. 3 and son of respondent No.2, pursuant
to which a petition under the provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955,
is reported to have been filed by them before the competent court for
decree of dissolution of marriage, 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 482 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.
6. 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 482 of the Code corresponding to 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 320 of the Code
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.
7. 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 FIRs 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.
8. 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.
9. The provisions of the Section 320 of the Code corresponding to
the Section 359 of BNSS 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 FIRs and criminal
proceedings, for the sake of the society at large, which is the real
beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system.
10. 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."
11. 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.
12. 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."
13. 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 Investigating Officer of the
case is quashed.
14. Registrar Judicial is directed to record the statement of appearing
parties upon their identification.
15. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed
of along with connected CM(s).
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
JAMMU
16.10.2024
Eva
Whether the order is speaking? No.
Whether the order is reportable? No.
