S. No. 57 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 725/2023 Bin Yamin Gulnar and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Gowhar Majeed Dalal, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K through Director General of Police and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 07.07.2025 1. Quashing of Charge sheet as also FIR no.14/2021 dated 05.07.2021 registered in Police Station Women’s Rambagh Srinagar, under Sections 498-A of IPC, pending trial before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Sub Registrar, Srinagar. (Trial Court) is sought for. 2. The facts as stated in this petition are that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 were married on 18.10.2008 and out of this relatioin two sons have born. Subsequently after some time, the relationship between them was not cordial and this discard resulted into the differences. A complaint had been filed by wife of petitioner No.1 before respondent No.2 on 05.07.2021, and on the basis of which, FIR in question has been registered. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed by the respondent No.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, and proceedings are pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Registrar) Srinagar. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements on 24.05.2025. The Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the petitioners, wherein they have stated that they have resolved and settled all the disputes and have entered into compromise which stands reduced into writing and executed on 24.11.2023. 4. In view of above fact situation, the question which arises for consideration whether the proceedings can be quashed as a consequence of compromise between the parties, is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh & ors. versus State of Punjab &ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with criminal proceeding. 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. 29.4 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. 5. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & anr., 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 247, the Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under: “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.” 6. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. 7. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that ends of justice require that proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised inappropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court to pass such orders. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the facts and circumstance of this case and taking note of their stand taken by them in their pleadings, it would serve no purpose to keep case-FIR/criminal proceedings pending against petitioner and this Court in exercise of its inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the same so that parties get rid of uncertainties that prevail between them in view of the impugned challan/proceedings. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. 9. The aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court have been relied by various High Courts. In appropriate cases, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice. 10. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioner No.1 do not fall within the offences 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 by entering into compromise and to this extent have also got their statement recorded before Registrar Judicial of this Court and agreed that petitioner No. 2 has no objection if challan and the FIR as stated above are quashed, therefore, indulgence under and in terms of provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted, more particularly when in view of the compromise the possibility of conviction 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and proceeding in case titled Police Statoin Women’s Rambagh Vs. Bi Yamin Gulzar and Ors. arising out of FIR No. 14/2021 dated 05.07.2021 and challan, registered in Police Station Women’s Rambagh under Section 498-A of IPC pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Registrar), Srinagar, are quashed. 12. Copy of this order be sent to Trial court. 13. Disposed of in terms of above. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 09.07.2025 10:17