Sr. No. 116 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 619/2021 Ankit Gupta & ors. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K & ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, DyAG Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 06.10.2025 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No.47/2018 dated 25.09.2018 under Sections 452, 451, 323, 324, 109 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station, Channi Himmat, Jammu, pending disposal before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. 02. Petitioner No. 6 and respondent No. 4 solemnized marriage on 10.05.2014 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs and out of their wedlock, one female child was born on 27.03.2015. It is submitted that due to certain differences and mistrust between them, their relationship started deteriorating, thus, this leads to FIR No. 119/2017 which was registered with Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu against the petitioners. The investigation in FIR for the aforesaid offences resulted in charge-sheet being presented before the competent Court which is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. 2 03. It is further submitted that the matrimonial dispute going on between petitioner No. 6 and respondent No. 4 has now been amicably settled and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu on 13.07.2020. It is submitted that as per the terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to withdraw all the cases against each other. 04. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the Charge Sheet No.47/2018 dated 25.09.2018 arising out of FIR No. 119/2017 registered with Police Station, Channi Himmat Jammu. 05. Statements of all the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 have been recorded. Petitioner No. 6 submits that the dispute between respondent No. 4 and her has amicably been resolved and their marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent under Section 15 of the J&K Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (now Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) in terms of the judgment dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu. Respondent No. 4 further submits that he has no grievance against the petitioners and he does not want to pursue the above mentioned FIR filed by him against the petitioners. He further submits that he has no objection in case FIR No. 119/2017 and consequent Charge-sheet No. 47/2018 pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu is quashed. 06. This issue regarding quashing of proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute on the ground of settlement/compromise is to be encouraged by this Court to put an end to all disputes as held in B. S. 3 Joshi & ors. vs. State of Haryana & anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Yashpal Chaudhrani & ors. State (Govt. of NcT Delhi) & anr. 2019 SCC Online Del 8179. 07. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & anr., 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 247, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under: “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.” 08. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and to pursue quietus to the controversy and amicable settlement between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of this petition. Similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh & ors. versus State of Punjab & ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466, vide which the guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement, for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 are reproduced below:- “29.03 Such a power is not 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 4 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. 29.04 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.05 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.” 09. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 10. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioners do not fall within the offences of heinous nature of mental depravity, like murder, rape, dacoity, as such, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that they have settled the matter as the parties having specifically agreed that they have no objection if FIR & charge-sheet as stated above are quashed. 11. The possibility of conviction in view of the compromise between the parties, is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings will 5 cause grave injustice to the parties as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the same. This Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings in this case would be abuse of process of the Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this petition is allowed and charge-sheet No. 47/2018 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 119/2017 registered at Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu against the petitioners for the commission of aforesaid offences, is quashed. 13. This petition along with connected application(s), if any, stands disposed of as such. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) Judge JAMMU RAM MURTI 06.10.2025 Ram Murti 2025.10.09 14:49 I am the author of this document