HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM (M) No. 1181/2025 Ms Amna …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. A. K. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tehseena Bukhari, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Umar Shakeel, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 01.07.2026 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the private respondents submit that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably outside the Court and have entered into a compromise. 2. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2, who is the real brother of the petitioner, against the petitioner and the other accused in the present case be quashed in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. While examining the nature of the offences, it is observed that the FIR has been registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. Though some of the offences are compoundable and the others are non- compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not fettered Sr. No. 39 2 CRM (M) No. 1181/2025 thereby. It is well settled that where the dispute is essentially private in nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement, this Court is competent to quash the criminal proceedings, including those involving non-compoundable offences, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. 4. This Court is also fortified in its view by the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303” and “Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466”, the relevant paras of which are reproduced as hereunder for the sake of convenience: “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303” 61. “In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings”. “Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466” 29. “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and 3 CRM (M) No. 1181/2025 exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offence sunder Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution; 29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure :(i) ends of justice, or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives”. 5. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has at several occasions reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing that where the offences do not have a severe impact on society at large and are predominantly of a private nature, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must exercise its discretion to secure the ends of justice. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is satisfied that the dispute is entirely personal in nature and that the parties have voluntarily resolved their differences. The allegations do not have any overriding public or 4 CRM (M) No. 1181/2025 societal ramifications warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, having regard to the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the FIR No. 0060 dated 29.09.2025 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (Crime Branch), Jammu, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and the other accused persons, pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed. 8. The writ petition in the light of amicable settlement between the parties and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, is allowed in the manner indicated above and the connected applications also stand disposed of. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu 01.07.2026 Nikhil Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No