HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.624/2024 CrlM No.1264/2024 c/w Bail App No.160/2024 CrlM No.1135/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28.10.2025 Uploaded on :30.10.2025. 1. Shabir Ahmed, Age 39 years S/o Jamal Din R/o Shergarhi Tehsil Chassana District Reasi 2. Billi, Age 39 years W/o Shabir Ahmed R/o Shergarhi Tehsil Chassana District Reasi. …..Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. S.R.Bhat, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Reasi. 3. Mohd. Yousuf S/o Abdul Habib R/o Shergarhi Tehsil Chassana, District Reasi .…. Respondent(s) Through: None Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) CRM(M) NO.624/2024 01. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No.114/2024 dated 09.07.2024 for commission of offence under Section 350. 351, 382, 323, 504 & 506 IPC registered at Sr. No.02 CRM(M) No.624/2024 c/w Bail App 160/2024 2 Police Station, Reasi against the petitioners, along with proceedings carried thereunder. 02. It is stated that the petitioner No.2 moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chassana on 28th June, 2024 against seven accused, which includes respondent No.3, for forcibly taking away the minor daughter of the petitioners, in connivance with Maqsood Shah and Tahil Hussain Shah, with an intention to sold the minor daughter to the son of respondent No.3. It is further submitted that daughter of the petitioners was taken to Reasi for solemnization of marriage with the son of respondent No.3 but the Registering Authority, on finding the girl minor, handed her over to the Child Welfare Committee. Subsequently, custody of the minor girl was handed over to the petitioners, being parents. 03. As per the petitioners, a scuffle also took place between them and four persons including respondent No.3 herein. However, on hearing the hue and cry raised by petitioners No.2, some locals gathered there and saved the petitioners from the clutches of the accused persons. It is stated that the when police had not registered any FIR on the complaint filed by petitioner No.2, she approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reasi with a complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 seeking a direction to the S.H.O., Police Station, Reasi to register FIR against the accused persons, which was forwarded to the Police with a direction to verify the matter and proceed under law. 04. According to the petitioners, in order to take revenge of the complaints filed by petitioner No.2, respondent No.3 filed a false and frivolous CRM(M) No.624/2024 c/w Bail App 160/2024 3 complaint against the petitioners and got the impugned FIR registered at Police Station, Reasi. 05. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court. In the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, they have decided to resolve the disputes and put an end to the litigation. On 04.07.2025, petitioners and respondent No.3 were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements. Accordingly, parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial and recorded their statements, which have been placed on record. As per the statements of the parties recorded before the Registrar Judicial, they have resolved their disputes amicably and prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No.3, who is complaint in the impugned FIR, has further stated that he has no objection in case FIR No.114/2024 is quashed. 06. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the proceedings can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant are reproduced below:- "29.03 Such a power is not to 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. 29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of CRM(M) No.624/2024 c/w Bail App 160/2024 4 commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5 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. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offence of heinous nature and keeping in view the nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties have already settled the matter and have agreed that respondent No. 3 has no objection if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 08. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, there are bleak chances of conviction and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties and would amount to abuse of the process of Court, as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the same. 09. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and FIR No.114/2024 registered at Police Station, Reasi and subsequent proceedings are quashed. 10. Disposed of accordingly. Bail App No.160/2024 11. Through the medium of instant application, the petitioners have sought concession of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.114/2024 dated 09.07.2024 registered at Police Station, Reasi. Vide order dated 20th July, 2024, concession of pre-arrest bail was granted in favour of the petitioners subject to certain conditions enumerated in the order. CRM(M) No.624/2024 c/w Bail App 160/2024 5 12. In view of the order passed in CRM(M) No.160/2024, whereby the FIR in question has been quashed, no further orders are required to be passed in this bail application. Disposed of as such. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu 28.10.2025 Vinod, PS Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: No Vinod Kumar 2025.10.30 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document