Sr. No. 99 Supplementary HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) NO. 785/2025 CrlM No. 1992/2025 Bashir Ahmad Sofi and Others ….. Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ibrahim Alam, Advocate with Mr. Moomin Sultan, Advocate V/s UT of JK and Others ….. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monisa Manzoor, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR-JUDGE O R D E R 22.09.2026 1. Head both the counsels. 2. Respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 1 were married in the year 2016, and out of the said wedlock, one male child was born. During the subsistence of the marriage, certain matrimonial disputes arose between them, which led to the registration of FIR No. 81/2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police 2 CRM(M) NO. 785/2025 CrlM No. 1992/2025 Station Parimpora, Srinagar. In addition, thereto, respondent No. 3 also filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, which is stated to be pending. 3. Respondent No. 3 had also initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Srinagar, which ultimately came to be disposed of. Thereafter, she filed execution proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Srinagar, which are stated to have been settled by way of compromise. 4. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have, after persuasion and reconciliation, resumed their matrimonial relationship and are presently living together amicably along with their minor son. The petitioners named in the FIR include petitioner No. 1, the husband of respondent No. 3; petitioner No. 2, her brother-in-law; and petitioner No. 3, her sister-in-law. Respondent No. 3 had accused them of having committed the aforesaid offences in connection with an incident alleged to have occurred on 22.05.2023. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement and jointly sought disposal of the matter on the basis thereof. They also appeared before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and made statements to the effect that better sense had prevailed upon them, that they had 3 CRM(M) NO. 785/2025 CrlM No. 1992/2025 resolved and settled all their disputes, and that they had entered into a compromise, which was recorded by the Trial Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. The parties have stated that they are abiding by the terms of the said compromise. Respondent No. 3, the complainant, has also appeared before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and affirmed the settlement arrived at between the parties. The parties, accordingly, seek disposal of the present petition in terms of the compromise. 6. Though the offence under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable, having regard to the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, resolved their matrimonial discord and resumed cohabitation, the settlement cannot be said to be opposed to public policy. The material on record indicates that the criminal proceedings arose out of matrimonial discord between the complainant-wife and her husband and his family members. The fact that multiple proceedings were initiated inter se the parties further demonstrate that, at the relevant point of time, the matrimonial discord had escalated, resulting in the institution of various proceedings, including the present criminal case. 7. The proceedings may have been initiated in the backdrop of strained matrimonial relations and the grievances then existing between the parties. However, the relationship between the complainant and the petitioners is 4 CRM(M) NO. 785/2025 CrlM No. 1992/2025 not disputed. In the aforesaid circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve the interests of the parties or the ends of justice. Once the parties have buried the hatchet, amicably settled their disputes and chosen to resume their matrimonial life in the company of their only child, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would merely result in unnecessary consumption of judicial time. Moreover, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and duly affirmed by the complainant, the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction appears remote. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 81/2023, registered at Police Station Parimpora, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 IPC, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, shall stand quashed, leaving the parties free to lead their lives amicably in accordance with the compromise arrived at between them. 9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with all connected CrlM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.09.2026 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2026 13:02