HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.672/2025 c/w CRM(M) No.483/2025 WAJID ALI AND OTHERS ... PETITIONER(S) DR. SAMIQ ZAFFAR & ORS. Through: - Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate (in CRM(M) No.672/2025 Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate (in CRM(M) No.483/2025. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA-for R1. Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate for R2 to R5 (in CRM(M) No.672/2025) Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate for R2 (in CRM(M) No.483/2025) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 25.11.2025 1) By this common judgment, the afore titled two cases, one filed by Wajid Ali and others and other filed by Dr. Samiq Zaffar Rawa and others, are proposed to be disposed of. 2) In CRM(M) No.672/2025, the petitioners have challenged FIR No.99 of 2025 for offences under Section 3(5), 61(2), 332(c) and 351(2) of BNS registered with Police Station, Parimpora, that has been lodged on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.2, namely, Dr. Samiq Zaffar Rawa. Briefly stated, the allegations made in the said FIR against the Sr. No.73 Regular List P a g e | 2 petitioners are that under the garb of order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Sub Judge), Srinagar, in a complaint filed by Salma Shafi, the wife of petitioner No.1, SHO, P/S Parimpora, in active connivance with the petitioners herein staged an unauthorized and illegal raid at the residence of wife of petitioner No.1 and committed unlawful trespass into her private property and seized her personal belongings. It is further alleged that the private respondents herein were wrongfully confined along with their minor children for more than three hours and filthy abuses were hurled upon them. 3) In CRM(M) No.483/2025, the petitioners therein, who happen to be the private respondents in CRM(M) No.672/2025, have challenged FIR No.49/2025 for offence under Section 85 of BNS registered with Police Station, Parimpora. The said FIR has been registered at the instance of private respondent who happens to be the wife of petitioner No.1. In the said FIR it has been alleged that after the marriage of the complainant with petitioner Dr. Samiq Zaffar Rawa, she was subjected to mental, emotional and physical cruelty by all the petitioners and demands of dowry in crores of rupees were made and when she failed to meet these demands, her husband threatened to pronounce Talaq upon her. It is further alleged that due to this cruel treatment and P a g e | 3 harassment meted out to the complainant by the petitioners, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and started to reside in her parental home at Sopore. 4) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the complainants in both the impugned FIRs have entered into a compromise and in this regard they executed a divorce deed by mutual consent on 24.11.2025 whereby they decided to end their marital relationship. In the said deed the parties have also agreed not to pursue criminal cases against each other. In support of the compromise, the statements of Salma Shafi (complainant in FIR No.49/2025 and respondent No.2 in CRM(M) No.483/2025) and Dr. Samiq Zaffar (complainant in FIR No.99/2025 and petitioner No.1 in CRM(M) No.483/2025) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial on 25.11.2025, wherein they have stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and that they have no grievance against each other and that they do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against each other. 5) It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIRs. 6) Heard and considered. 7) So far as the fact pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties, is concerned, the same is not in P a g e | 4 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 arise out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. In these circumstances, if an end is not put to the criminal P a g e | 5 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, both the petitions are allowed and FIR Nos.99 of 2025 for offences under Section 3(5), 61(2), 332(c) and 351(2) of BNS and 49/2025 for offence under Section 85 of BNS, both registered with Police Station, Parimpora, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 25.11.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No