HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.259/2025 RIYAZ AHMAD PEERZADA ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Zain-ul-Abideen Wani, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel for R- 1 & 2. Mr. T.A. Lone, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 02.06.2025 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, has challenged the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.04/2025 for offences under Section 85, 117(2) and 131 BNS registered with women’s Police Station, Kupwara, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Sogam Kupwara. 2) As per the contents of the FIR, on 01.03.2025, the complainant (respondent No.3) lodged a written report with the police, alleging therein that Reyaz Ahmad Peerzada (petitioner herein), with whom she has married 18/19 years back and out of the said wedlock three children were born, has been physically and mentally torturing her. It was alleged that on 01.03.2025, her above named husband abused her Sr. No.115 Regular List P a g e | 2 and gave a beating to her, as a result of which she got injured and he also threatened to kill her. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 85, 131, 117(2) of BNSS were found established against the accused and the challan was accordingly laid before the trial court. 3) It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise on 24.04.2025. In support of the compromise, the statements of petitioner and respondent No.3 (complainant) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial on 02.06.2025, wherein they have stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and that they have no grievance against each other. Complainant/respondent No.3 has stated that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused. 4) It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIR. 5) Heard and considered. 6) So far as the fact pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties, is concerned, the same is not in P a g e | 3 dispute. The question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings. 7) It is a settled law that the offences arising out of matrimony where the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, particularly when, as a consequence of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Mishra vs. State of UP & Ors, (2024) 3 SCR 385, K. Bharathi Devi vs. The State of Telengana (SLP (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018 decided on 3rd October, 2024), Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466. 8) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties have entered into a compromise wherein the complainant has categorically stated that she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is also clear that the offences alleged against the petitioner exclusively arise out of matrimonial dispute between him and the complainant. In these circumstances, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to giving a fresh lease of life to P a g e | 4 the dispute which has been settled by parties amicably. It will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise that has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 9) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.04/2025 for offences under Section 85, 117(2) and 131 BNS registered with women’s Police Station, Kupwara, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Sogam Kupwara, are quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 02.06.2025 Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.06.2025 02:19