Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Mohd. Saleem – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & Anr. – Respondents
CRM(M) No. 396 of 2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021
Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashment of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 498(A), 323 I.P.C. - 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Compromise between the parties - Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent No. 2, who were married, entered into a compromise settling their disputes and dissolving their marriage. They sought quashment of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties made the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, and continuing the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioner. It concluded that quashing the proceedings would be in the interest of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another and Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, emphasizing that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings, considering the amicable settlement between the parties and the remote possibility of conviction, thereby putting an end to the proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of charge sheet No. 140/2020 dated 20.06.2020 pending trial before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu arising out of FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort for offences under Section 498(A), 323 I.P.C.
2. The background facts those stem out from the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 came to be solemnized on 12.12.2016 in accordance with the Muslim rites and rituals, however, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 became strained, resulting into registration of an FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. A complaint is also stated to have been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu followed by the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Special Magistrate Passenger Tax and Electricity, Srinagar which came to be transferred subsequentially to the Court of Sub-Registrar, Jammu.
3. It is being stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid cases inter se the petitioner and respondent No. 2, a compromise came to be arrived at and reduced into writing on 12.07.2021 between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 settling their disputes and differences besides dissolving their marriage and further resolving that the cases pending before the Courts of Law would be got settled accordingly.
4. It is being stated that for carrying out the terms and conditions of the compromise, the petitioner with the consent of respondent No. 2 instituted the instant petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 130/2020 pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. The petitioner, thus, prays for quashment of the said proceedings in the instant petition.
5. Upon coming of the petition for consideration on 31.08.2021, this Court directed for recording the statements of the parties before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. The statements accordingly have been recorded on 02.09.2021 and are part of the record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to extract and reproduce the statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 recorded in terms of order dated 31.08.2021 in support of comprise here under:-
Stated that I and petitioner No. 1 namely Mohd. Saleem solemnized marriage in accordance with Muslim rites on 12.12.2016 at Bemina Srinagar. In view of non-compatibility and temperamental difference, our relationship, became strained. Consequently, I filed FIRs and initiated Criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1 before different courts at Jammu. During the pendency of litigations, I entered into compromise, vide compromise deed dated 12.07.2021, with petitioner no. 1. In terms of said compromise deed, I have also dissolved my marriage with petitioner No. 1 by executing mutual consent divorce deed (Mubarat Nama) on 12.07.2021. I have already received an amount of Rs. Seven Lacs from petitioner no. 1 in terms of the compromise deed and he has paid remaining amount of Rs. Six lacs through online transaction to me today. I admit the aforementioned compromise deed as well as my signature on the compromise deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed and a mutual consent divorce deed, I have no objection in case Hon'ble Court quash criminal proceedings initiated u/s 498-A/323 I.P.C. in case titled “State Vs. Mohd. Saleem” aris
The main legal point established is that the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, ....
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash FIRs in cases where the parties have reached a settlement, particularly in disputes with a civil nature, p....
The High Court has the inherent power to quash FIRs in cases where the parties have reached a compromise, particularly in disputes of a private nature, provided that the nature of the offences does n....
The court's decision was based on the application of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, ....
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the quashing of FIRs when the parties have settled their disputes amicably, provided the offences do not involv....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings and FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the parties have a....
High Court quashed FIR for non-compoundable non-consensual sexual intercourse offence on victim-accused compromise and her court statement, as conviction remote, trial futile, securing ends of justic....
Point of Law - Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
