HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 966/2025 1. Ram Paul, S/O Late Milkhi Ram R/O Patta Paloura, Jammu 2. Taro Devi, W/O Late Milkhi Ram R/O Patta Paloura, Jammu Date of pronouncement: 01.10.2026 Date of uploading: 05.10.2026 …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate (th. VC) Mr. Sachin Cbbibber, Adv vs 1.UT of J&K through Incharge Police Station, Women Cell Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 2.Sangeeta Kumari, D/O Behari Lal R/O H. No. 212/10, Kabir Nagar, Talab Tillo, Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 Mr. Pawan Kumar Khajuria, Adv for R-2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER (01.10.2026) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashment of chargesheet arising out of FIR No. 22/2011 dated 23.09.2011 under Section 498-A of RPC lodged by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1-Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are the husband and wife and the petitioner No. 2 is Serial No. 37 2 CRM(M) No. 966/2025 the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2. That the marriage of hte petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 13.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs and due to differences and incompatible nature between the two, they both decided to get separated from each other and both had decided to get divorce by way of mutual consent in term of Section 15 of J&K Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 and a decree was passed by Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu on 27.08.2018. That the respondent No. 2 had filed different cases and lodged the FIRs against the family of the petitioner No. 1, which were withdrawn in terms of compromise dated 22.10.2019, but inadvertently, one of the FIRs, No. 22/2011 was left out at the time of the compromise and the same was not included in the compromise deed drafted at that time. That the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have now settled their life after divorce and there is no concern between the parties. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the parties have compromised with each other and pray that the petition be allowed. The petitioners as accused and the respondent No. 2- Sangeeta Kumari as complainant, were examined by the learned Registrar Judicial. Their statements, in support of the compromise dated 25.09.2025, have been placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and respondent No. 2/complainant, have stated at the Bar that in view of compromise reached between the parties, the petition be allowed, and the impugned charge sheet be quashed, to secure the ends of justice. 3 CRM(M) No. 966/2025 5. 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 contesting parties, stating that the offences in the charge-sheet arising out of the impugned FIR are of personal nature inter se parties due to marital discord. 6. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is no longer res integra. (i) The Apex Court in the case reported as Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 has held as under:- “35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered 4 CRM(M) No. 966/2025 with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.” (ii) 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. (iii) 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. 7. Offence under Section 498 A RPC of which petitioners have been charged in the impugned case are of personal nature with no public overtones and in such case the parties should not be discouraged from settling their disputes/offences through mutual compromise. 8. In the background of the aforestate legal enunciations by the Apex Court on the point, it is the duty of this Court to bring quietus to personal disputes, that have already been settled between the parties. This Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 5 CRM(M) No. 966/2025 2023 would consider, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, as an abuse of the process of the court. 9. 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 the case, 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 FIR, would secure the ends of justice. 10. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR No. 22/2011 dated 23.09.2011 and charge-sheet arising out of it, under Section 498-A and, pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu, are, thus, quashed. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the trial court for information and record. 11. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed along with connected application(s). (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Jammu 01.10.2026 Vishal Sharma Whether the order is reportable?: Yes/No Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No