HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.329/2025 AZAD AHMAD DAR ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Waqar-ul-Haq, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None for R1 & R2. Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Adv-for R3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 29.07.2025 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.09/2021 for offence under Section 354 of IPC registered with Police Station, Lalpora Lolab Kupwara, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Sogam Kupwara. 2) As per the impugned FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the compound of the complainant (respondent No.3 herein) and hurled abuses upon her. When she objected to the same, the petitioner is alleged to have beaten her and torn her clothes apart, which, according to the complainant, amounted to outraging of her modesty. After investigation of the case, offence under Section 354 IPC was Sr. No.103 Regular List P a g e | 2 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 10th May, 2025. In support of the compromise, the statements of petitioner and respondent No.3(complainant) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial on 11.07.2025, 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) Heard and considered. 5) Although the petitioner has been booked for offence under Section 354 of IPC, yet a closer look at the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR reveals that it is not a case of outraging of modesty of the complainant. The criminal trespass coupled with beating of the complainant cannot be equated with the offence of outraging of modesty. At the most, the allegation made against the petitioner constitute the offences of criminal trespass, causing of hurt and criminal intimidation. All these offences are compoundable in nature. 6) In the face of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby respondent No.3/complainant has P a g e | 3 undertaken not to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the chargesheet appear to constitute the offences which are of compoundable nature, there is no legal impediment in accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties and quash the impugned criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 7) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.09/2021 for offence under Section 354 of IPC registered with Police Station, Lalpora Lolab Kupwara, and the proceedings emanating therefrom which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Sogam Kupwara, is quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 29.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No