Item No.75 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 08.06.2026 CRM(M) No.761/2024 MR. AQIB HAMID ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Abrar H. Khan & Mr. Hasnain Khawaja , Advocate s Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Naveed Bakhtiyar, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, is seeking quashment of FIR No.55/2024 for offences under Section 354-A, 506, 384, 341, 392 IPC registered with Police Station, Kulgam, and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 2) As per contents of the impugned charge sheet, on 30.04.2024, 06.07.2021, the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) lodged a written report with the police alleging therein that the accused (petitioner herein) has been threatening and harassing her and her family with some photos, videos and forged documents. It was also alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant at her P a g e | 2 workplace and inappropriately touched her. It was further alleged that the accused extorted money for which the complainant had to be take loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs. It was also alleged that the accused threatened fiancé of the complainant and showed her photos, videos and documents to him. On the basis of aforesaid report, the impugned FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case, offences under Section 341, 506, 354-A, 384, 392 of IPC were found established against the. 3) It seems that the parties have entered into a compromise on 14.11.2024. They have produced a copy of the compromise deed before this Court. In support of the deed of compromise, the statements of the petitioner and complainant Nahida (respondent No.2 herein) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial on 25.05.2026, wherein they have stated that they were in relationship with each other and that on account of differences, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2 but now they have amicably settled and resolved all their disputes and they have no grievance against each other. Complainant/ respondent No.2 has stated that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused/ petitioner. P a g e | 3 4) The petitioner has contended that so far as the case arising out of impugned FIR is concerned, the same could not be compounded because some of the offences disclosed therein are non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 5) Heard and considered. 6) So far as the facts mentioned in the compromise deed, are concerned, the same are not in dispute. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are non-compoundable in nature. 7) It is a settled legal position that the offences arising out of the disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature or the disputes arise out of matrimony and 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 P a g e | 4 Supreme Court in the cases of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Anil Mishra vs. State of UP & Ors, (2024) 3 SCR 385, K. Bharathi Devi vs. The State of Telangana (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 against the petitioner and that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The wrong alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon respondent No.2, which is subject matter of the impugned challan, is personal in nature. In these circumstances, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to giving a fresh lease of life to the dispute which has been settled by parties amicably and 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. P a g e | 5 9) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.55/2024 for offences under Section 354-A, 506, 384, 341, 392 IPC registered with Police Station, Kulgam, and the proceedings emanating therefrom against petitioner are quashed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 03.06.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No