CRM(M) No.434/2023 Item No.6 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 05.06.2026 CRM(M) No.434/2023 TARIQ AHMAD MISGER ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None for R1 to R5. Mr. Asif, Adv. - for R6 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought quashment of FIR No.21/2023 for offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Batamaloo. 2) As per the contents of impugned FIR, on 27.02.2023, the complainant (respondent No.6 herein), who is ex-wife of the petitioner, lodged a written report with the Police Station alleging therein that on 25.02.2023, when she had gone to Family Court in connection with hearing of a case, near the main gate of the court, the accused threatened her and tried to tear off her clothes. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR was registered and investigation was set into CRM(M) No.434/2023 motion. After investigation of the case, the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC were found established against the accused. 3) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise and in support whereof, the statement of respondent No.6 (complainant) has been recorded by the Registrar Judicial, wherein she has stated that she has amicably settled and resolved all her disputes with the petitioner and she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against him. 4) Heard and considered. 5) So far as the fact pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties, is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings. 6) It is a settled law that the offences arising out of the disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature or the disputes arise out of matrimony and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, particularly when, as a consequence of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused. In my aforesaid view, I CRM(M) No.434/2023 am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Anil Mishra vs. State of UP & Ors, (2024) 3 SCR 385, K. Bharathi Devi vs. The State of Telangana (SLP (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018 decided on 3rd October, 2024), Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466. 7) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties have entered into a compromise wherein the complainant has categorically stated that she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is also clear that the offences alleged against the petitioners exclusively arise out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. In these circumstances, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to giving a fresh lease of life to the dispute which has been settled by parties amicably and 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 accused/ petitioner in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. CRM(M) No.434/2023 8) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.21/2023 for offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Batamaloo, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 03.06.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No