144 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 33/2025 Deepak Choudhary Through: Mr. Akeel Wani, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and others Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 26.03.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged the charge sheet emanating from FIR No. 08/2023 dated 27.01.2023 for offences under sections 376(2)(K), 354-A, 417, 506, 509 IPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.01.2023, written information was received by the Police, in which respondent No. 3/complainant alleged that she had got engaged to the petitioner and the engagement was held with the consent of the two families. It was alleged in the application that on 03.10.2022, respondent No. 3/complainant met the petitioner at Chichi Mata Mandir, Samba on 03.10.2022, whereafter the engagement was finalized on 05.10.2022. The formal function of engagement was hosted at Choudhary Dhaba, Hiranagar and the expenditure thereof was incurred by father of the respondent No. 3. It was alleged in the application that on the very next date i.e. on 06.10.2022, the petitioner started sending messages on the WhatsApp of respondent No. 3 and she started responding to the same. She also responded to 2 CRM(M) No. 33/2025 telephone calls of the petitioner as they were proposing to get married. On 22.10.2022, the petitioner called respondent No. 3 at Bagh-e-Bahu as he was to leave at his place of posting on 27.10.2022. It has been further alleged that the petitioner was forcing her to accompany him to a hotel but respondent No. 3 refused to do so, which infuriated the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner started touching respondent No. 3 inappropriately on her chest and he also put his hand inside her undergarment and fondled her breasts. It was also alleged that the petitioner touched the private part of respondent No. 3 and tried to emotionally torture her. She was taken to a hotel room, where he requested for recording of a video while bathing, which was refused by respondent No. 3. It has been submitted that in order to save the relationship, respondent No. 3 shared her nude picture with the petitioner on 24.10.2022, who started body shaming her. On 27.10.2022, the petitioner left for his place of posting and he continued to chat with respondent No. 3 up till 12.11.2022, whereafter he abruptly conveyed to her that he is not going to marry her and that she should convey this message to her family. It has been further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner refused to have any conversation with respondent No. 3 on the pretext that she is not attractive. Respondent No. 3 narrated these facts to her family and the family members of respondent No. 3 approached the mother of the petitioner, who straightway told them that her son is not ready to enter into wedlock with respondent No. 3. On the basis of these allegations, aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation of case was started. 3. After investigation, the Police found that only offences under Sections 354-A and 417 IPC are established against the petitioner, whereas offences under Sections 376 (2) (K), 509 and 506 IPC were not found established 3 CRM(M) No. 33/2025 against the petitioner. During investigation of the case, respondent No. 3 refused to undergo medical examination and even the mother of respondent No.3 refused to make any statement before the Police. 4. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the impugned challan on the ground that during pendency of the challan, the families of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 intervened in the matter and they sorted out the differences between the parties, as a result whereof a compromise deed dated 21.12.2024 was executed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3. It has been submitted that in terms of the said settlement, respondent No. 3 has undertaken that she will not pursue the criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. 5. In order to verify execution of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to get their statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial. On 28.02.2025, the statement of petitioner and statement of respondent No. 3 were recorded by the learned Registrar Judicial. In her statement recorded before the Registrar Judicial, respondent No. 3 stated that she has entered into a settlement with the petitioner and that she has no grievance against him, as such, she does not want to pursue the challan pending before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7. So far as the facts alleged in the present petition, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of the compromise deed dated 21.12.2024 are concerned, the same are not in dispute. 4 CRM(M) No. 33/2025 However, the question that poses itself before this Court is as to whether offence under Section 354-A IPC for which the petitioner has been booked in the impugned challan being not compoundable in nature, can be compounded. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavor, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. of the family disputes, where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if in its view because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. ss. State of Punjab and Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466. 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 owes its origin to the refusal on the part of the petitioner to enter into wedlock with respondent No. 3 despite there being an engagement ceremony between the two. This is clear from the facts of the prosecution case as narrated hereinbefore. Respondent No. 3 has resorted to criminal prosecution against the petitioner, once he backed out from marriage proposal, which the two families had arranged with the consent of the parties. 5 CRM(M) No. 33/2025 Therefore, it is a case, which has essentially arisen out of proposed marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The parties having settled their grievances against each other and respondent No. 3 has undertaken not to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner, there are bleak chances of securing conviction of the petitioner in these circumstances. Thus, trial of the petitioner by the Court below for the charges under section 354-A and 417 IPC would be an exercise in futility. If an end is not put to the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in these circumstances, it would result in extreme injustice to him. Thus, once the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 which is a wrong basically private/personal in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute, this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the challan emanating from FIR No. 08/2023 dated 27.01.2023 for offences under sections 376(2)(K), 354-A, 417, 506, 509 IPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu as well as the proceedings initiated thereon pending before the Court Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax, Jammu, are quashed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 26.03.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. KARAM CHAND 2025.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document