Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Krishan Lal And Anr vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir And ... on 17 October, 2025

Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul

Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

CRM(M) No. 258/2024


Krishan Lal and Anr.

                                          ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                 Through:-     Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate

          V/s

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr.

                                                .....Respondent(s)


                Through:-      Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy.AG for R-1
                               Mr. Shray Bakshi, Advocate for R-2


CORAM :
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
                   JUDGMENT

17.10.2025

01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of Challan No.79/2022 dated

02.11.2022 under Sections 341, 323, 382, 427,147,201 IPC and 4/25

Arms Act, pending disposal before the Court of learned Munsiff/Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class R.S.Pura, Jammu along with all consequential

proceedings initiated there under.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the

pendency of the challan, an amicable settlement has been reached

between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2. In this

regard, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have executed a

compromise deed dated 19.03.2024, copy whereby has been placed on

record.

03. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are

that respondent no 2/ complainant filed a complaint against the

petitioners and other persons for alleging hurt to her son, namely,

Shubam Kumar and further committing theft. An FIR bearing No.0068

dated 22.07.2022 under Sections 323, 382, 427, 147 IPC and 4/25 Arms

Act was registered by the Police Station Arnia against the petitioners in

this regard. After conducting investigation, a Charge sheet No. 79/2022

dated 02.11.2022 was presented by the respondent No. 1 before the

Learned Judicial Magistrate 1" Class R.S.Pura under Section 323, 382,

427, 147, 201 IPC and 4/25Arms Act against the petitioners and three

more persons, namely Shamsher Singh, Anil Kumar and one Vishal

Angural.

04. In support of the compromise deed, statements of the

petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 have been recorded. Respondent

No. 2 submits that she has executed a compromise deed dated

19.03.2024 with petitioners and he has no grievance against the

petitioners. She has further stated that he has no objection in case FIR

bearing No.0068 dated 22.07.2022 registered at Police Station, Arnia,

Jammu and consequent Challan No. 79/2022 dated 02.11.2022 for

offences under Section 341, 323, 382, 427,147, 201 IPC and 4/25 Arms

Act, pending adjudication before the Court of learned Munsiff/Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class R.S.Pura, Jammu is quashed.

05. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise,

which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force

in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that offences in the instant case can be ordered to be compounded.

06. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this

Court deems it fit to consider the instant petition in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466,

whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the

settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1,

Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred

under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power

which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of

the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has

inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases

which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter

between themselves. Paragraph Nos. 29.1 to 29.5 are reproduced below:-

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

"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."

09. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases

which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like

murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

10. 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 as the parties having specifically agreed that they have no

objection if FIR & Challan as stated above are quashed.

11. The possibility of conviction in view of the compromise

between the parties, is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings

will cause grave injustice to the parties as the parties are no longer