HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 45/2023 CrlM No. 60/2023 1.Jai Gopal S/o Sh. Krishan Dutt 2.Vijay Kumari W/o Sh. Jai Gopal 3. Raghunandan S/o Sh. Jai Gopal All residents of Sector No.2, Channi Himmat, Jammu. 4. Shikah W/o Sh. Sachin Sharma R/o Sunjwan, Distt. Jammu. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate V/s 1.Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through APP Additional Mobile Magistrate, Samba. 2. Surbhi Sharma D/o Sh. Ram Lal Sharma R/o Ward No.1, Bari Brahmana, Distt. Samba. …..Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocate for R-2 CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 20.08.2025 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of Criminal Challan/Charge Sheet No.108/2022 dated 15.08.2022 arising out of FIR No. 131/2019 dated 11.09.2019 registered by Police Station, Bari Brahmana District Jammu, under Sections 498-A/34, 452, 323,504 and 506 RPC pending disposal before the Court of learned Additional Munisff, Samba. 2 02. Petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage in the year 2019. It is submitted that due to certain differences and mistrust between them, their relationship started deteriorating, thus, this leads to FIR No. 131/2019 dated 11.09.2019 which was registered with Police Station Bari Brahmana District Samba against the petitioners. The investigation in FIR No. 131/2019 for the aforesaid offences resulted in charge-sheet being presented before the competent Court which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, Samba. 03. It is further submitted that the matrimonial dispute going on between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 has now been amicably settled and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the Principal District Judge, Samba on 04.07.2022. 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 Criminal Challan/Charge Sheet No.108/2022 dated 15.08.2022 arising out of FIR No. 131/2019. 05. Statements of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 have been recorded. Respondent No. 2 submit that the dispute between petitioners and her has amicably been resolved and she has dissolved marriage with petitioner No. 3 by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in terms of the judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Samba. She further submits that she has no grievance against the petitioners and she does not want to pursue the above mentioned FIR filed by her against the petitioners. She further 3 submits that she has no objection in case FIR 131/2019 and consequent Challan/Final Report/chargesheet No. 108/2022 pending adjudication before the Court of learned Addl. Munsiff, Samba 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. 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 4 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 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. 5 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 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 pending before the Court of learned Addl. Munsiff, Samba, arising out of FIR No. 131/2019 dated 11.09.2019 registered at Police Station Bari Brahmana District Samba against 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 20.08.2025 BIR