Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abdul Ahad And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 18 February, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr.No. 35
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: CRM (M) 2/2025
Abdul Ahad and Ors. ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Arshad Husssain, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through :-
Coram:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
18.02.2025
1. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS, 2003), the petitioners seek
quashment of Challan/Charge Sheet arising out of FIR No. 07/2021 dated
28.03.2021 registered with the Police Station, Chasana for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/325/34 IPC registered at the
instance of the complainant- Parveen Akhter (private respondent herein) against
the petitioners, titled UT of J&K and others vs. Farkhan Ahmed and others,
pending before the Court of learned JMIC Mahore at Reasi, on the ground that
the dispute between the parties has already been resolved and that they have
entered into a compromise with the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute arose between the
parties which lead to registration of FIR No. 07/2021. The allegations against the
petitioners are that on 28.03.2021 at 7.00 AM when complainant- Parveen
Akhter was preparing breakfast petitioners came their and started beating the
complainant with criminal intention. Petitioner -Farkhan Ahmed gave a strike
with upon the face of the complainant with pipe which resulted in breaking up
her upper tooth. In the complaint it was also stated that petitioners asked her to
bring Rs. 5.00 Lac from her parental home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the
complainant-respondent No. 3 are the relative and they have entered into
compromise with complainant-respondent No.3 and have amicably settled the
dispute among them in pursuance of which FIR in question was registered. It is
stated that now as the dispute has been settled by the parties amicably, the
complainant-respondent No. 3 does not want to follow/pursue the FIR in
question and thereby the parties have executed the compromise deed dated
27.12.224, which has been annexed with the instant petition. Perusal of the
Compromise Deed reveals, that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably
out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion and they
do not want to pursue this litigation.
4. In support of the compromise deed executed between the parties,
statements of the petitioners as well as complainant-respondent No. 3 have been
recorded before the Registrar Judicial of this Court on 10.02.2025.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon a judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled 'State of Madhya
Pardesh V. Laxmi Narayan' reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that even if offence under Section 307 IPC is non-
compoundable, the same can be quashed the basis of compromise, taking into
consideration the nature of injuries etc.
6. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 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 of the
said judgment 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."
7. In the instant petition, petitioners as well as complainant-respondent No. 3
have amicably and without any pressure settled their disputes out of the Court
and a Compromise Deed to this effect has also been entered into between the
parties. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am
of the considered view that the aforesaid judgments directly apply to the present
case.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant petition is allowed, Challan/Charge Sheet
arising out of FIR No. 07/2021 dated 28.03.2021 registered with the Police
Station, Chasana for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-
A/323/325/34 IPC at the instance of the complainant- respondent No. 3 against
the petitioners titled UT of J&K and others vs. Farkhan Ahmed and others,
pending before the Court of learned JMIC Mahore at Reasi, is quashed
8. Writ petition is disposed of in the above said terms.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
Jammu:
18.02.2025
Bir
