Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Junaid Ahmad Khan & Anr vs Union Territory Of J&K on 7 February, 2025
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No. 42/2025
CrlM No. 71/2025
Junaid Ahmad Khan & anr. .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Ms. Mehreen Altaf, Advocate
V/s
Union Territory of J&K .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Mubashir Malik, DyAG
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
07.02.2025
01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 76/2023 dated
19.06.2023 registered at Police Station Nigeen against petitioner No. 2 for
the commission of offence under section 353 IPC which was registered at
the instance of petitioner No. 1 and the Challan pending before the Court of
Passenger Tax, Srinagar.
02. Petitioner No. 1 is working as Store Keeper Ration Depot,
Hazratbal, registered a complaint against petitioner No. 2 alleging that
while performing his duty of distribution of Ration, petitioner No. 2
forcefully approached him to collect rice and obstructed, assaulted
petitioner No. 1. This lead to a written complaint being filed by petitioner
No. 1 and consequently, FIR No. 76/2023 dated 19.06.2023 was registered
with Police Station Nigeen against petitioner No. 2 for the commission of
offence under section 353 IPC and investigation in the aforesaid FIR
resulted in Challan being presented on 12.08.2023 before the Court of
learned CJM, Srinagar which was assigned to the court of learned
Passenger Tax Court, Srinagar.
03. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have agreed to
resolve their disputes amicably and have executed a Compromise Deed
dated 23.12.2024 at Srinagar which has been annexed with this petition. As
per the Compromise Deed reveals, that the petitioners have resolved the
dispute amicably and they do not want to pursue this litigation.
04. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court for quashing of the same. Today, both the petitioners are present in
person and are duly identified by their counsels. Statements of the
petitioners have been recorded. They submit that in terms of the
Compromise Deed, they have amicably settled the dispute outside the
Court and a Compromise Deed has been executed in this regard and they
have decided not to pursue the said criminal Challan.
05. Perusal of the Compromise Deed reveals that the petitioners have
settled the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any
external pressure or coercion.
06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and to pursue
quietus to the controversy and amicable settlement between the petitioners,
no useful purpose would be served in continuation of this petition. Similar
issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh &
ors. versus State of Punjab & ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466, vide which the
guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement, for quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue
with criminal proceedings. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 are
reproduced below:-
"29.03 Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for offences alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by Public Servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.
29.04 On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.05 While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
07. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases
which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc.
08. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the
petitioners do not fall within the offences of heinous nature of mental
depravity, like murder, rape, dacoity, as such, keeping in view the nature of
the allegations and considering the fact that they have settled the matter and
decided to live in a peace and harmony as petitioner No. 1 having
specifically agreed that he has no objection if FIR & Challan as stated
above are quashed.
09. The possibility of conviction in view of the compromise between
the petitioners/parties, is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings
will cause grave injustice to the petitioners as the petitioners are no longer
interested in pursuing the same. This Court is of the view that continuation
of proceedings in this case would be abuse of process of the Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as keeping in view the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this petition is allowed and
Challan pending before the Court of Passenger Tax, Srinagar, arising out of
FIR No. 76/2023 dated 19.06.2023 registered at Police Station Nigeen
against petitioner No. 2 for the commission of offence under section 353
IPC, is quashed.
11. This petition along with connected application(s), if any, stands
disposed of as such.
(SINDHU SHARMA)
Judge
SRINAGAR
RAM MURTI/PS
07.02.2025
