HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.88/2023 FIRDOUS AHMAD & ORS ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Ms. Tabind Yousuf, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & anr. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 30.04.2025 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, have challenged orders dated 07.10.2022 and 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter for short “the trial Magistrate”), whereby, on an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C filed by respondent No.2, respondent No.1, has been directed to register FIR and to file status report. The petitioners have also sought quashment of FIR No.14/2023 lodged against them for offences under Section 447 and 506 of IPC in P/S Saddar, which has been registered pursuant to impugned order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. 2) As per the report lodged by the complainant/ respondent No.2 by way of his application under Section Sr. No.57 Regular List P a g e | 2 156(3) of the Cr. P. C, the petitioners are threatening to forcibly occupy his landed property and in this regard, the petitioners by brandishing unlicenced gun and by resorting to threats, have already forcibly occupied a portion of the landed property belonging to respondent No.2. 3) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise on 11the April, 2025. In support of the compromise, the statements of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and respondent No.2 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. 4) It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the impugned orders and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 5) Heard and considered. 6) 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. P a g e | 3 7) It is a settled law that the offences arising out of the disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature 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. 8) 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 he is not willing to pursue the proceedings and that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is also clear from the contents of the impugned FIR that the dispute between the accused and the complainant is essentially of civil nature, which pertains to a land dispute. 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. It will amount to frittering away of the P a g e | 4 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. 9) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 07.10.2022 and 17.02.2023, impugned FIR No.14/2023 lodged against the petitioners for offences under Section 447 and 506 IPC in P/S Saddar and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 30.04.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 05.05.2025 00:27