CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Pronounced on : 24.07.2026 Uploaded on : 28.07.2026 1. Mohd. Shafaq S/O Mohd. Manzoor R/O Ghai Doongi Brahmana Tehsil and District Rajouri. 2. Danish Chowdhary S/O Khaliq Hussain R/O Dhara Sanwa Tehsil and District Rajouri. ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Sumir Pandita, Advocate. V/S 1. UT of J&K Through SHO Police Station, Rajouri District Rajouri. 2. Nazma Kouser W/O Mohd. Shafaq R/O Village Gai, Rajouri Tehsil and District Rajouri. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1. Mr. Shamas Ud Din Shaaz, Advocate for R-2. \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 24.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of FIR No. 478/2025 dated 20.09.2025 for offences punishable under sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS registered at Police Station, Rajouri along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the parties have compromised with each other and CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 pray that the petition be allowed. Both the petitioners, namely, Mohd. Shafaq and Danish Chowdhary as accused and the respondent-Nazma Kouser as complainant were examined by the learned Registrar Judicial. Their statements, in support of the compromise, have been placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and respondent No. 2/complainant, have stated at the Bar that in view of compromise reached between the parties and supported by them in their examination before this Court, submit that the petition be allowed, and the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the said FIR be quashed, to secure the ends of justice. 4. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA appearing for the respondent No. 1-UT of J&K has raised no serious objection to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, stating that the offences in the impugned FIR are of personal nature inter se parties. 5. The impugned FIR seems to have been registered due to marital discord between the couple, petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Shafaq and respondent No. 2-Nazma Kouser and acrimony between their respective families, resulting into lodging of FIR. Since the estranged couple has reconciled and so by their families, continuation of the prosecution of criminal cases would be a nightmare for them. 6. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case reported as Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 has held as under:- CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 “35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.” 7. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court, within the framework of inherent power, may quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, there is a clear cut observation by the Hon’ble Apex Court that CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, proceedings with the trial would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings, as otherwise, it would be a grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal enunciation by the Apex Court on the point, it is the duty of this Court to being quietus to personal disputes that have already been settled between the parties. This Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 would consider the continuation of the criminal proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and in view of the statements having been made by the parties that they have entered into a compromise, the prosecution in both the cases, would serve no fruitful purpose, as it would ultimately be farce/mock trial, for the purpose of conclusion by asking both the sides to undergo the mill of prosecution. In these circumstances, it would be an abuse of process, as such, quashing of the impugned FIR and proceedings arising therefrom would secure the ends of justice. 10. All the offences of which petitioners have been accused in the impugned FIR are of personal nature with no public overtones and are also not very grievous in nature and in such case the parties should not be discouraged from settling their disputes/offences through mutual compromise. 11. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR No. 478/2025 dated 20.09.2025 alongwith CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR against the petitioners are, thus, quashed. 12. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith application(s). (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 24.07.2026 Naresh/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes Naresh Kumar 2026.07.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document