HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 603/2024 Vishnu Devi & ors. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K & anr. …..Respondent(s) Through:- None CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 24.02.2025 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 0194/2022 dated 15.05.2022 registered at Police Station Kathua, at the instance of respondent No. 2, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 34 IPC against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and under Sections 323, 324, 307, 34, 506, 109 IPC read with Section 4 & 25 Arms Act against petitioner No. 3. They are also seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No.260/2023 dated 01.12.2023 pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua. 02. Petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage in the year 2008 and out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 02.08.2018. It is submitted that due to certain differences and mistrust between them, their relationship started deteriorating, thus, this leads to impugned FIR No. 0194/2022 dated 15.05.2022 which was registered with Police Station Kathua against the petitioners. The investigation in FIR No. 0194 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences resulted in charge-sheet being presented 2 before the competent Court which is pending before the court learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua. 03. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably and have executed a Deed of Compromise dated 10.05.2024 at Kathua which has been annexed with this petition. As per the Deed of Compromise, the petitioners have resolved the dispute amicably and they want to live together peacefully and now do not want to pursue this litigation. 04. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the same. Today, both the petitioners are present in person and are duly identified by their counsels. Statements of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 have been recorded. They submit that in terms of the Deed of Compromise, they have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and a Deed of Compromise has been executed in this regard and they have decided not to pursue the aforesaid FIR as well as charge sheet. 05. Perusal of the Deed of Compromise reveals that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion. 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. 3 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 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 4 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. 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 and decided to live in a peace and harmony 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 5 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 Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, arising out of FIR No. 0194/2022 dated 15.05.2022 registered at Police Station Kathua 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. (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge JAMMU RAM MURTI/PS 24.02.2025 Ram Murti 2025.02.27 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document