The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while quashing an FIR under Section 498A of Ranbir Penal Code [offence of cruelty], observed that it would amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. (Abdullah Danish Shervani v. UT of J&K and Anr.)
Facts of the Case
The instant petition was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing for FIR filed for offences under Section 498A RPC registered at Police Station, Nigeen Srinagar, and the consequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate 13th Finance Commission(Sub Judge), Srinagar.
The case set up by the petitioner is that he was married to one Mehnaz Siddiqui (the complainant in impugned FIR), who hails from Karachi Pakistan, as per Muslim Personal Law in the year 2009. It is contended that some personal differences and disputes arose between the parties, which ultimately resulted in the divorce between the parties on 11.09.2017. It is contended in the petition that the parties filed various litigations against each other in the form of a civil suit, writ petition, petition under Section 488 Cr. P. C and various other criminal complaints besides lodging the impugned FIR against the petitioner, which ultimately culminated into presentation of a charge sheet and the same is pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate 13th Finance Commission(Sub Judge), Srinagar.
During the pendency of all these proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and, accordingly, a compromise deed dated 17th day of November, 2018, was executed by the parties which were placed on record. As per this compromise deed, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have also withdrawn the cases pending between them as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It was further stated in the compromise deed that the complainant does not want to pursue the impugned FIR.
Contention of the Parties
Petitioner has contended that so far as the case arising out of FIR, which is pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate 13th Finance Commission(Sub Judge), Srinagar, is concerned, the same could not be compounded because the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Court against the petitioner is non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
Courts Observations & Judgment
The HC took into account two rulings of the Apex Court (Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and (Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303) to come to the conclusion that the HC has the power to quash the criminal proceedings in connection with alleged offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
The bench taking note of the above and adverting to the facts of the instant case noted, “Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties to the matrimonial dispute i.e., petitioner and the complainant, have entered into a compromise and that compromise has also been acted upon by the parties, inasmuch as the cases and counter cases lodged by the parties against each other have been withdrawn/compounded.
Merely because the offences under Section 498A RPC, for which petitioner is facing trial on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, is non compoundable, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to grave injustice to the petitioner and, in fact, it will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise that has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law”
Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition was allowed.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
