Item No.84 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.436/2026 Qadeer Ahmad Mir ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Naveed Bukhtiyar, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & Anr. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Saniya Noor, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, is seeking quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.74/2022 for offences under Section 354 and 341 of IPC registered with Police Station, Uri, which are stated to be pending before the Court Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Sub Judge) Uri. 2) As per contents of the impugned FIR, on 14.07.2022, the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) lodged a written report with the police alleging therein that on the said date, she was wrongfully restrained by the petitioner thereby preventing her from proceeding in either direction. It was alleged that the accused person caught hold of her, tore her clothes apart, dragged her by hair and pulled down her headgear thereby outraging her modesty. P a g e | 2 3) 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 and 354 IPC were found established against the petitioner and the challan was laid before the trial court. 4) It seems that the parties have entered into a compromise on 1st June, 2026. 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 the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial on 17.08.2026, wherein they have stated that good sense has prevailed upon them and that they have amicably settled and resolved all their disputes. They have further stated that 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. 5) The petitioner has contended that the offences arising out of impugned FIR could not be compounded because of the same being 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. 6) Heard and considered. P a g e | 3 7) 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. 8) 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 Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466 Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Anil Mishra vs. State of UP & Ors, (2024) 3 SCR 385, and K. Bharathi Devi vs. The State of Telangana (SLP (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018 decided on 3rd October, 2024), 9) 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 P a g e | 4 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 FIR, arises out of a private/civil dispute between the partes. 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. 10) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.74/2022 for offences under Section 341 and 354 of IPC registered with Police Station, Uri, against petitioner are quashed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 17.08.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No