HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 Maqbool Hussain …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Waqar Hussain Shah, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sadiya Mustafa Bhat, Adv. for R-3 and 4 None for Respondent No. 1 and 2 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE ORDER 04.11.2025 1. The respondent No.3/complainant in the impugned case FIR bearing No.0342 dated 30.10.2023 under Section 354 IPC registered with Police Station Surankote, Poonch, sought to be quashed has already filed an application before this Court seeking disposal of the instant petition on the basis of compromise reported to have been entered between her and the petitioner/accused. The statements of the said respondent No.3/complainant as well as the petitioner/accused stands also recorded pursuant to the direction of this Court. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that since the concerned private parties have amicably settled the dispute that had led to the registration of the impugned case FIR, as such, the instant petition be allowed with the quashment of the impugned FIR. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner/accused and respondent No.3/complainant are close neighbours residing in the same village and, as such, the quashment of the FIR on the basis of the mutual Sr. No. 115 2 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 compromise/settlement between them is likely to normalize their relations as neighbours. 4. In the backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the instant petition for quashment of the impugned FIR is likely to meet the ends of justice as the concerned private parties i.e. petitioner/accused and the respondent No. 3/complainant being close neighbours have entered into an amicable settlement in attestation whereof their statement have also been got recorded by the Registry. 5. Although this Court is of the opinion that an FIR cannot be generally and in routine manner allowed to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code on the main ground that the parties have settled their controversy that had become the cause of occurrence, yet exceptional ground appears to be made out in the opinion of the Court, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, for invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in question. 6. 6. The provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code regarding quashment of FIR’s and criminal proceedings for the sake of the society at large which is real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system. 7. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with an authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as <Gopal Kumar B. Nar Vs. CBI (2014) 5 3 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 SCC 800= in which it has been held that <though quashment of non- compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties would not amount to circumvention of Section 320, but such power has to be exercised with care and caution and would depend on facts of each case.= 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in <Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641= has considered the aspect of the invocation of the inherent powers by the High Courts under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code and was pleased to lay down some broad governing principles for invocation of such power of the High Courts. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience: <Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a 4 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such 5 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 6 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in <Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641= has considered the aspect of the invocation of the inherent powers by the High Courts under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code and was pleased to lay down some broad governing principles for invocation of such power of the High Courts. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience: <Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: (xi) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (xii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal 7 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (xiii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (xiv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (xv) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (xvi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (xvii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or 8 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (xviii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (xix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (xx) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 10. This Court in its opinion also feels fortified with the authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as <Gyan 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= 9 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 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 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 482of 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; 10 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 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 no neither of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3 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 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.= 11. Having regard to the amicable settlement of the dispute between the petitioner/accused and the complainant/respondent No. 3, the continuance of the criminal proceedings sought to be quashed appears to be a futile exercise, for just completing the procedure for recording an order of acquittal. In its opinion, this Court is fortified with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in, (i) Satesh Nehra V/S Delhi Administration 1996 (III) Crimes 85 SC; (ii) Madan Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1969’ and (iii) JugdishChananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr. AIR 2008 SC 1968. Relevant Paras of the referred judgments deserve a needful mention as under: 11 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 <Satesh Nehra V/S Delhi Adminstration 1996 (III) Crimes 85 SC.= <But when the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case, ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion at a future date. Most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of work load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain, that the trial would be only an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or swap the proceedings.= <(ii) Madan Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969= <In disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution in a luxury, which the courts, grossly overburdened as they cannot afford and that the time so save can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.= <(iii) Jugdish Chananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr AIR 2008 SC 1968= <In the light of the compromise it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transaction that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise we accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR83/12.3.2001 P/S City Sonapat and on subsequent proceedings.= 12 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted the compounding of the offences even at the appellate stage having regard to the mutual settlement between the contesting parties and the nature of the offences involved in the proceedings being personal in nature <[Mulukri Sira Prassad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 (4) SC 254, Khursheed and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2007 and Ab. Sattar Vs. State of M.PAIR 1981 SC 1775].= 13. Allowing the complainant/victim and the accused in a criminal proceeding at any stage of investigation, trial or appeal to seek quashment of the proceedings or the compounding of the offences even in cases where commission of non-compoundable offences of personal nature not involving public/social aspect is alleged, on the basis of amicable settlement, is not likely to prove detrimental to the scope and object of the provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code. Such an approach is likely to put an end to some further apprehended litigation of both civil and criminal nature and to allow the parties to have a peaceful and cordial relation, besides saving the precious time of the Criminal Courts being already grossly over-burdened as the continuance of such criminal proceedings is likely to prove a futile exercise only for the purpose of completing the procedure for recording an order of acquittal at the end. Provisions of Section 320 of the Code corresponding to Section 359 of the BNSS do not restrict but only limit the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS so that the extraordinary powers are used only in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. Provisions of Section 482 of the Code (528 of 13 CRM (M) No. 6/2025 CrlM No. 11/2025 BNSS) have an overriding affect and are not to be read as subject to the provisions of Section 320 of the Code (359 of BNSS). The criminal proceedings, involving heinous offences of anti- social nature or offences under special penal statutes do not qualify for being quashed/compounded in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code (528 BNSS). 14. Criminal litigation between near relatives or co-sharers more often originates from the civil/matrimonial disputes and as such directing the quashment of proceedings by invoking the inherent powers under the Code/BNSS, in such matters of personal nature not involving the commission of any heinous offence is likely to meet the ends of justice. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the case FIR bearing No.0342/2023 dated 30.10.2023 under Section 354 IPC registered with Police Station, Surankot, District Poonch, is quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings, if any. (Mohd. Yousuf Wani) Judge Jammu 04.11.2025 Mahavir