Sr. No. 17 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 676/2022 Sanjay Kumar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K & ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, DyAG CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER 03.01.2025 01. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 162/2022 dated 05.09.2022 registered at Police Station Bakshi Nagar Jammu against him for the commission of offences under sections 354, 354-B, 506 & 323 IPC which was registered by respondent No. 3 at the instance of respondent No. 4. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute arose between the parties which lead to registration of FIR No. 162/2022 against the petitioner by respondent No. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that at the time of occurrence, there was a scuffle between the petitioner and son of the complainant i.e. respondent No.4, as a result of which, the petitioner received serious injuries regarding which the petitioner had already lodged an FIR bearing No.157/2022 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC against the complainant. It is submitted that regarding the same occurrence and as a counter blast to the 2 FIR lodged by the petitioner, the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR, on false and frivolous grounds. 03. The complainant and the petitioner are neighbourers and with the intervention of the people of the area, the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably. They have executed a Compromise Agreement dated 27.11.2024 at Jammu which has been annexed with this petition. Perusal of the Compromise Agreement reveals, that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and they do not want to pursue this litigation. 04. Accordingly, the parties have approached this Court. Today, both the parties are present in person and are duly identified by their counsels. Statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have been recorded. They submit that in terms of the Compromise Agreement, they have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and a Compromise Deed has been executed in this regard and they have decided not to pursue the aforesaid FIR(s). 05. Perusal of the Compromise Agreement reveals that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion. 06. 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 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 3 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.” 07. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 4 08. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioner 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 complainant having specifically agreed that she has no objection if FIR as stated above is quashed. 09. 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 pursuing the same. This Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings in this case would be abuse of process of the Court. 10. 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 FIR No. 162/2022 dated 05.09.2022 registered at Police Station Bakshi Nagar Jammu, is quashed. 11. This petition along with connected application(s), if any, stands disposed of as such. (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge JAMMU RAM MURTI/PS 03.01.2025 Ram Murti 2025.01.03 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document