CRM(M) No. 784/2024 Page 1 of 3 Serial No. 13 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 784/2024 ABDUL REHMAN BADYARI AND ORS. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Khan, Advocate and Ms. Sehreen Zehra, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION PARIMPORA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG for R-1 and 3 CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 15.05.2026 1. The petitioner-husband has thrown challenge to FIR No. 139/2024 registered at the behest of respondent-wife, wherein the latter has alleged commission of offences under Sections 74 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the strength of an incident dated 10.12.2024. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties appear to have amicably settled their disputes and are stated to be residing together. Pursuant to the previous direction of this Court, the parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial and made statements on oath affirming the settlement arrived at between them. 3. In terms of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the offence under Section 74 of the BNS is non- CRM(M) No. 784/2024 Page 2 of 3 compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 115(2) of the BNS is compoundable at the instance of the person to whom hurt is caused. Having regard to the nature of the accusations and the offences alleged against the petitioners, and further considering that the parties were embroiled in matrimonial discord, respondent No. 2/complainant has stated that the FIR came to be lodged in the heat of such discord. She has further stated that the parties have now resolved their differences and are residing together peacefully, enjoying matrimonial harmony. 4. Considering the fact that the parties are husband and wife and have settled their disputes amicably, this Court is of the view that, though the offence under Section 74 of the BNS is non-compoundable, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, is empowered to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law. Even otherwise, if the petitioners are subjected to trial, no useful purpose would be served, particularly in view of the admission made by respondent No. 2, whose testimony would not support the prosecution case and would, in all likelihood, result in acquittal of the petitioners. 5. Consequently, nothing survives in the present proceedings, and continuation thereof would not only subject the parties to unnecessary harassment but would also amount to abuse of the process of law and wastage of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, this Court finds the present case fit for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction so as to enable the parties to lead a peaceful matrimonial life. CRM(M) No. 784/2024 Page 3 of 3 6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 139/2024 are hereby quashed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 15.05.2026 Akhil Dev