HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CRM(M) 504/2024 SIMRAN GILL W /o Manav Sharma R/o Christian Colony Jammu, City Jammu. At present H.no.24, Hanuman Gali, Lakhdata Bazar, Jarnmu ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate V/s 1.U.T of J&K through SHO Police Station City Jammu. 2. Pooja Sharma W/o Pawan Sharam R/o Malhotra Mohalla Jammu ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL,JUDGE ORDER 02.04.2025 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 0029/2024 dated 03.06.2024 registered at Police Station, City Jammu for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452,323,504, 506, 34 & 427 IPC. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that his marriage with the son of respondent No.2, namely, Manav Sharma was solemnized in the year 2021 after converting herself from Christen to Hindu. It is contended that due to some personal differences Sr.No. 149 2 and dispute arising between them, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner. 3. It seems that during the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 have entered into compromise and have amicably settled the dispute among them in pursuance of which FIR in question was registered. It is stated that now as the dispute has been settled by the parties amicably, the complainant-respondent No. 2 does not want to follow/pursue the FIR in question and thereby the parties have executed the compromise deed dated 12.08.2024 which has been placed on record. Perusal of the Compromise Deed reveals, that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion and they do not want to pursue this litigation. 4. In order to verify the execution of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 18.10.2024, directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements. Pursuant to the said direction, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties and the same are placed on record. In their statements, the parties have admitted the contents of the compromise deed as well as its execution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and to pursue quietus to the controversy and amicable settlement between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of the instant 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 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.” 7. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that the parties have settled the matter and decided to live in a peace and harmony, as the petitioner as well as complainant 4 (respondent No. 2) having specifically agreed that they have no objection if FIR in question is quashed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 0029/2024 dated 03.06.2024 registered at Police Station, City Jammu for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452,323,504, 506, 34 & 427 IPC is quashed. 10. The instant petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected application(s), if any. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu: 02.04.2025 Bir BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.04.04 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document