CRM(M) No.480/2024 Item No.8 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:27.12.2025 Uploaded on: 29.12.2025 CRM(M) No.480/2024 GULZAR AHMAD SHAH & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Shahbaz Sikandar Mir, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- None for R1. Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Adv.-for R2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, have challenged order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, whereby, on an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS filed by respondent No.2, respondent No.1, has been directed to proceed in the matter and file report. The petitioners have also sought quashment the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.37/2024 for offence under Section 115(2), 191(2), 351(2) and 310(2) of BNS registered with Police Station, Imam Sahib, Shopian. 2) As per the impugned FIR, the petitioners are alleged to have blocked the pathway of the orchard of the complainant CRM(M) No.480/2024 (respondent No.2 herein) on 25.07.2024 and are alleged to have beaten him ruthlessly besides taking away cash of Rs.5000/ from him. On receipt of the aforesaid complain, the impugned FIR was lodged and the investigation was set into motion. 3) It is pertinent to mention here the investigation of the impugned FIR has been stayed by this Court in terms of order dated 07.08.2024. 4) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise on 9th September, 2025. Copy of the compromise deed has been placed on record. In support of the compromise, the statements of petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial, wherein they have stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and that they have no grievance against each other. Complainant/respondent No.2 has stated that he does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioners. 5) It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the impugned FIR. 6) Heard and considered. CRM(M) No.480/2024 7) 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. 8) 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 am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Mishra vs. State of UP & Ors, (2024) 3 SCR 385, K. Bharathi Devi vs. The State of Telengana (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. 9) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties have entered into a compromise wherein the complainants have categorically stated that they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is also clear that the offences alleged against the petitioners exclusively CRM(M) No.480/2024 arise out of civil 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/ petitioners in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.37/2024 for offence under Section 115(2), 191(2), 351(2) and 310(2) of BNS registered with Police Station, Imam Sahib, Shopian and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 27.12.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No