HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M)No.120/2023 Neeraj Sharma, Age 29 years S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri At present H.No.267 Anand Vihar, Lane No.1 Talab Tillo, Jammu …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of J&K through SHO Police Station , Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 2. Neha Dogra D/o Sh. Sandeep Dogra R/o H.No.124, Nai Basti, Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 07.02.2025 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in challan titled UT of J&K v. Neeraj Sharma, pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff/JMIC, Jammu arising out of FIR No.220/2019 dated 15.08.2019 for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu against the petitioner. 02. It is stated that a false and frivolous FIR bearing FIR No.220/2019 was lodged by respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2 for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC, which resulted in presentation of charge-sheet, which is pending before the Court of 3rd Additional Munsiff /JMIC, Jammu. Sr. No.84 2 03. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court. In the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, they have decided to resolve the dispute and put an end to the litigation. In terms of the said compromise, the both the parties have agreed to let each other to live peacefully without any interference from each other. 04. On 19th April, 2024, when the case was taken up, respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner was directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements. The respondent No.2 and the petitioner have recorded their statement before the Registrar Judicial and same are placed on the record of the file. 05. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the proceedings can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant 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. 29.4 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. 29.5 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." 3 06. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the offence of heinous nature and keeping in view the nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties have already settled the matter and have agreed that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR and subsequent charge-sheet titled UT of J&K v. Neeraj Sharma pending before the 3rd Additional Munsiff, JMIC, Jammu, is quashed. 07. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, there are bleak chances of conviction and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties and would amount to abuse of the process of Court, as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the same. 08. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and FIR No.220/2019 registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and consequent Charge-sheet titled UT of J&K v. Neeraj Sharma, pending disposal before 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu are quashed. 09. Disposed of accordingly. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu 07.02.2025 Vinod, PS Whether order is speaking: Yes/No Whether order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2025.02.10 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document