CRM(M) No. 369/2025 Page 1 of 3 Serial No.96 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR. CRM(M) No. 369/2025 Abdul Rouf & Ors. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. M. A. Rathore, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K & Anr. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Adil Mushtaq, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 29.08.2025. 1. Upon coming up the instant petition for consideration, the counsel for the respondent 2 who is also present in person and identified by the said cousnel states at the Bar that an amicable settlement has been arrived at outside the Court with the petitioners, settling their inter-se disputes which had given rise to the registration of FIR No. 59/2021, impugned in this petition and that on account of the said settlement, the instant petition be disposed of and the FIR impugned in the petition be quashed. 2. On the other hand a similar submission is also made by the counsel for the petitioners. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter inasmuch as, the facts of the case the instant petition deserves to be settled in view of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303” wherein it has been held under:- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding CRM(M) No. 369/2025 Page 2 of 3 or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to CRM(M) No. 369/2025 Page 3 of 3 dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding”. 4. Viewed thus, the impugned FIR No. 59/2021, seemingly has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the complainant/respondent 2 herein and petitioner 1 herein, the impugned FIR is quashed and the petition is as such disposed of. (Javed Iqbal Wani) SRINAGAR Judge 29.08.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :11.09.2025 12:34