HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M)No.894/2024 1. Gul Mast Khan, Age 28 years S/o Fareed Khan, R/o Village Bafliaz Tehsil Surankote District Poonch. 2. Arbaz Khan, age 25 years S/o Fareed Khan R/o Village Bafliaz Tehsil Surankote District Poonch. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of J&K through SHO Police Station , Surankote 2. Shoket Ali, age 38 years S/o Mohd. Latief R/o Village Dhara Mohra Tehsil Surankote District Poonch. …Respondents Through: Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, GA for R-1 Mr. Rahoof Khan, Advocate for R-2 Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 07.02.2025 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, the petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings in challan titled UT of J&K v. Gul Mast Khan and another, pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch arising out of FIR No.0166/2023 dated 28.06.2023 for commission of offence under Section 307/147/336/382 IPC registered at Police Station, Surankote against the petitioners. Sr. No.104 2 02. It is stated that the dispute arose between the parties, when on 27th June, 2023, respondent No.2 was unloading bricks from a truck for construction of his new house at Dhera Mohra, Surankote. Respondent No.2 submitted an application before the SHO Police Station, Surankote on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners herein and one other accused person, which resulted in presentation of charge-sheet, which is pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch. 03. During the pendency of the proceedings, due to the efforts and attempts made by the friends and elders as well as respectable people of the society to settle the dispute in order to maintain good and healthy relationship, 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, both the parties have agreed to an end the disputes existing between the parties. 04. On 06th December, 2024, when the case was taken up, parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements. The respondent No.2 and the petitioners have recorded their statements 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 3 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 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. Gul Mast Khan and another pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch, is quashed. 07. 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. 4 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.0166/2023 registered at Police Station, Surankote, Poonch and consequent Charge-sheet titled UT of J&K v. Gul Mast Khan and another, pending disposal before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch, 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