Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Col. Harinder Deep Singh Rainal (Retd) vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 10 September, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 806/2024
1.Col. Harinder Deep Singh Rainal (Retd)
S/o Late S. Dalip Singh
R/o H.No.243, Sector-1, Channi Himmat, Jammu
2.Rishi Kumar S/o Sh. Parshotam Dass
R/o 362, Sector-4, Channi Himmat, Jammu
3.Rudraksh Sharma S/o Sh. Rishi Kumar
R/o 362, Sector-4, Channi Himmat, Jammu
4.Indu Bala Wo Sh. Rishi Kumar
R/o 362, Sector-4, Channi Himmat, Jammu
...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Aman Bhagotra, Advocate
V/s
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,
Through Senior Superintendent of Police,
Special Crime Wing,
Crime Branch, Jammu .....Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate vice
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
20.08.2025
01. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of FIR No.
0018/2023 dated 27.07.2023 registered with Police Station
Special Crime Wing, Jammu, for offences under Sections 420
and 120-B of IPC, against petitioners No. 2 to 4, along with
all proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of an
amicable settlement and compromise entered into between
petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 to 4.
02. The case of the petitioners is that an Agreement to
Sell was executed between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.
2 on 18.05.2022, in respect of two plots of land measuring 10
marlas each, for a total consideration of ₹40.00 lakhs. Out of
the said amount, petitioner No. 1 paid ₹6.00 lakhs in cash
and ₹24.00 lakhs via cheque No. 000001 dated 27.05.2022
drawn on AU Small Finance Bank, totaling ₹30.00 lakhs.
03. A dispute subsequently arose between the parties in
respect of the sale transaction, leading to registration of FIR
No. 0018/2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC by
petitioner No. 1 against petitioners No. 2 to 4. It is stated
that, thereafter, the parties have amicably resolved their
disputes and entered into a settlement, whereby petitioners
No. 2 to 4 have paid a sum of ₹25,70,000/- to petitioner No.
1, and for the balance amount of ₹4,30,000/-, cheques have
been handed over with an assurance of encashment. In
furtherance of the settlement, a Compromise Deed dated
18.10.2024 has also been executed.
04. In support of the compromise deed, statements of the
petitioners have also been recorded. Petitioners have stated
that they have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with
respect to the land in question and have prayed for quashing
of the FIR No. OO18/2O23 dated 27.O7.2023 along with all
proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
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 parties, 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, the dispute relates to a
commercial land transaction, and the parties have voluntarily
entered into a compromise. There is no public interest
involved, nor any allegation of heinous nature. The possibility
of conviction is remote, and continuation of the proceedings
would serve no fruitful purpose and would result in abuse of
process of law.
09. Accordingly, in view of the settlement between the
parties, and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.
0018/2023 dated 27.07.2023, registered with Police Station
Special Crime Wing, Jammu, under Sections 420 and 120-B
IPC, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
10. The petition, along with connected applications, if
any, stands disposed of.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
10.09.2025
BIR
