CRM(M) No. 488/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Pronounced on : 20.07.2026 Uploaded on : 23.07.2026 1. Basharat Razaq, S/O Mohd. Razaq. 2. Parveen Akhter, W/O Mohd. Razaq 3. Nazarat Razaq, D/O Mohd. Razaq All residents of Dodasanbala, Thanamandi, Rajouri A/P Polly Hill Estate, Channi Rama, Jammu. 4. Bilal Yousif, S/O Mohd. Yousaf R/O Saim Sammat, Thanamandi, Rajouri A/P Polly Hill Estate, Channi Rama, Jammu. ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Sohail Mustafa, Advocate. V/S 1. UT of J&K Through Commissioner/Secretary Department of Home Affairs Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. 3. Station House Officer, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. 4. Shehdad Younis W/O Basharat Razaq R/O Dodasanbala, Thanamandi, Rajouri A/P Polly Hill Estate Channi. 5. Mohd. Younis S/O Abdul Aziz R/O Asrarabad, Sidhra, Jammu. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 to 3. Mr. Mursaleen Suharwardy, Advocate for R-4 & 5. CRM(M) No. 488/2026 \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 20.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of criminal proceedings of chargesheet bearing No. 24/2023 dated 10.10.2023 arising out of FIR No. 0047/2023 dated 24.08.2023 for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 342, 506,109 IPC registered at Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and chargesheet No. 01/2025 dated 24.12.2025 arising out of FIR No. 171/2023 dated 05.06.2023 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 382, 201, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents’ No. 4 and 5 that the parties have compromised with each other and pray that the petition be allowed. All the petitioners, namely, Basharat Razaq, Parveen Akhter, Nazarat Razaq, Bilal Yousif as accused and both the respondents, namely, Shehdab Younis and Mohd. Younis as complainants were examined by the learned Registrar Judicial. Their statements, in support of the compromise, have been placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and respondents No. 4 and 5/complainants, have stated at the Bar that in view of compromise reached between the parties and supported by them in their examination before this Court, submit that the petition be allowed, and the impugned FIRs and charge-sheets arising out of the impugned FIRs be quashed, to secure the ends of justice. CRM(M) No. 488/2026 4. Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing for the respondent No. 1-UT of J&K has raised no serious objection to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, stating that the offences in both the chargesheets arising out of the impugned FIRs are of personal nature inter se parties. 5. Chargesheet laid against the petitioners arising out of FIR No. 47/2023 lodged by respondent No. 4, has accusation of subjecting her by her husband and in- laws to the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 342, 506, 109 IPC whereas, chargesheet laid against them arising out of FIR No. 171/2023 lodged by respondent No. 5- father of respondent No. 4, with the accusation that petitioners had committed offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 427, 382, 201, 34 of IPC. 6. Both the cases seem to have been registered due to marital discord between the couple, petitioner No. 1 Basharat Razaq and respondent No. 4-Shehdab Younis and acrimony between their respective families, resulting into lodging of FIRs. Since the estranged couple has reconciled and so by their families, continuation of the prosecution of criminal cases would be a nightmare for them. 7. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case reported as B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028, has held as under:- “14.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her CRM(M) No. 488/2026 husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” The aforesaid view of the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has subsequently been reiterated in another judgment titled as Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014(6) SCC 466. 8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court, within the framework of inherent power, may quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 9. The Apex Court in another case titled Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, (2025) INSC 962, after discussing the earlier judgments on the issue of the family members of the husband being unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord has laid down that continuation of criminal proceedings in the event of an agreement between the parties even in the case of non- CRM(M) No. 488/2026 compoundable offences especially in matters of matrimony would only be an exercise in futility and justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. 10. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, there is a clear cut observation by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, proceedings with the trial would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings, as otherwise, it would be a grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal enunciation by the Apex Court on the point, it is the duty of this Court to being quietus to personal disputes that have already been settled between the parties. This Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 would consider the continuation of the criminal proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and in view of the statements having been made by the parties that they have entered into a compromise, the prosecution in both the cases, would serve no fruitful purpose, as it would ultimately be farce/mock trial, for the purpose of conclusion by asking both the sides to undergo the mill of prosecution. In these circumstances, it would be an abuse of process, as such, quashing of the impugned FIRs and chargesheets would secure the ends of justice. CRM(M) No. 488/2026 13. All the offences of which petitioners have been accused in both the cases are of personal nature with no public overtones and are also not very grievous in nature and in such case the parties should not be discouraged from settling their disputes/offences through mutual compromise. 14. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned FIRs No. 0047/2023 dated 24.08.2023 under sections 498-A, 323, 342, 506, 109 IPC registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and FIR No. 171/2023 dated 05.06.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 427, 382, 201, 34 IPC and chargesheet Nos. 24/2023 and 01/2025 respectively arising out of the impugned FIRs, alongwith consequential proceedings against the petitioners before the trial courts are, thus, quashed. 15. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith application(s). (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 20.07.2026 Naresh/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Naresh Kumar 2026.07.23 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document