HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.557/2024 1. Ankush Choudhary, Age 31 yrs. S/o Sh. Ramesh Lal, R/o Vijaypur Near DRS Kids School District Samba, J&K 2. Bachno Devi, Age 6z Years. W/o Lt Sh. Ramesh Lal R/o Vijapur Near DRS Kids School District Samba, J&K 3. Tarsem Singh, Age 39 years S/o Kherati Lal, R/o 131, Ward NO 08, Dollian, Bari Brahmna, Jammu & Kashmir 4. Sapna Devi, Age 39 years W/o Tarsem Singh R/o 131, Ward NO 08, Dollian, Bari Brahmna, Jammu & Kashmir ..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, J&K, Jammu. 3. Station House Officer/In charge, Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. 4. Anjali choudhary, W/o Ankush Choudhary, R/o A/p Ward no 55, Gangyal Greater, Jammu Colony, Jammu, J&K .…. Respondent(s) Through: None Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 14.01.2025 01. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek quashing of the Sr. No.57 CRM(M) No.557/2024 2 FIR No.26/2024 dated 30.05.2024 registered with Police Station, women Cell, Jammu, at the behest of respondent No.4, for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109, 506, 509 of IPC on numerous grounds. 02. It is stated that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 was solemnized on 15th April, 2022 according to Hindu rites and customs. According to the petitioners, things remained normal for the first few months of the marriage but thereafter respondent No.4’s behavior got changed and she always used to pick quarrel with petitioner No.2 and many a times threatened her to implicate in some false case. It is pleaded that respondent No.4 without informing anyone including petitioner No.1 got her pregnancy terminated thereby leaving the petitioners completely shattered. The matrimonial discord between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 led to filing of cases against each other including petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Respondent No.4 also filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu on 11.01.2024, which led to registration of the impugned FIR 03. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court and have entered into a compromise dated 9th October, 2024. In the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, they have decided to resolve the disputes and put an end to the litigation. 04. On 8th November, 2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the CRM(M) No.557/2024 3 compromise arrived between them. On 01.01.2025, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, appeared before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and got their statements recorded which are placed on the record of the file. In terms of the statement of respondent No.4, on whose instance the impugned FIR was lodged, she has no grievance against the petitioners and she does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. 05. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the FIR 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." 06. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners 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. 4 shall CRM(M) No.557/2024 4 have no objection if the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings, if any, is quashed. It is also well settled that civil disputes as well as matrimonial dispute between private parties and criminal matter which have no grave effect, can be quashed on the basis of compromise. 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, 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.26/2024 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu and consequent proceedings, if any, is quashed. 09. Disposed of accordingly along with connected application(s). (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu 14.01.2025 Vinod, PS Whether order is speaking:Yes/No Whether order is reportable:Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2025.01.14 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu