Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(J&K) 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Karan Singh Chib and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
CRMC No. 182 of 2014
Decided On : 10-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rohit Sharma.
For the Respondent: Raman Sharma.

The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Headnote:
Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashment of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 455, 382, 120-B, 156(3), 454, 380, 201 RPC - The court referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2017 (9) SCC 641 to establish that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The court concluded that the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of the respondent against the petitioners and the same relates to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise having been arrived at with the respondent No. 3 and further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law.
Fact of the Case:

The parties entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, leading to the quashment of the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Court of Passenger Tax, Jammu, and the FIR and challan pending before the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jammu.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of the respondent against the petitioners and the same relates to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise having been arrived at with the respondent No. 3 and further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet filed before the trial Court should be quashed in light of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles and propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2017 (9) SCC 641 to determine that the FIR in question, being predominantly civil in nature and having been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties, should be quashed.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 29.01.2013, FIR No. 22/2013 dated 31.01.2013 and the challan, pending before the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jammu shall stand quashed.

JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (previously Section 561-A Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Court of Passenger Tax, Jammu, vide which complaint under Sections 455 and 382 read with Section 120-B RPC filed by the respondent No. 3, namely, Sourav Goswami has been forwarded to SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter under law as well as FIR No. 22/2013 dated 31.01.2013, registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for commission of offences under Section 382 RPC and also challan titled as, State vs. Karan Singh Chib and Others, pending before the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jammu under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 201 RPC.

2. The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIR had got registered at the instance of respondent No. 3 against the petitioners and consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of the instant petition.

3. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties, the petitioners, as also the respondent No. 3 in terms of order dated 09.03.2022 were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the deed of compromise. The statements of the petitioners, as also the respondent No. 3 have been recorded on 09.03.2022 by the Registrar Judicial. The same are extracted and reproduced here under:

“Statement of Karan Singh Chib (petitioner No. 1); Age 81 years S/o Bari Singh Chib R/o 9-B/B Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on oath on 09.03.2022:

Stated that I am owner of a house and shop situated at 9-B/B Ext., Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. I had a dispute with Sourav Goswami (respondent No. 3) with regard to the possession of the above mentioned shop. This dispute led to the filing of Civil and Criminal litigations by Sourav Goswami against me, my son and daughter in law. These litigations include complaint under Sections 455, 382 read with section 120-B of RPC which was forwarded to SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under section 156(3) by the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the matter under law; FIR No. 22/2013 dated 31.01.2013 registered with Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for the commission of offence under Section 382 RPC and challan titled State vs. Karan Singh Chib and Others pending disposal before the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jammu for the offences under sections 454, 380 read with Section 201 of the RPC. During the pendency of the petition i.e. CRMC No. 182/2014, I have amicably settled all my issues and disputes with Sourav Goswami (respondent No. 3). A compromise deed in this regard has also been executed on 02.12.2021 before Notary, Jammu and copy of the same has also been placed on the record of the file. In view of our compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash the complaint under Sections 455, 382 read with section 120-B of RPC which was forwarded to SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Section 156(3) by the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the matter under law; FIR No. 22/2013 dated 31.01.2013 registered with Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for the commission of offence under Section 382 RPC and challan titled State vs. Karan Singh Chib and Others pending disposal before the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jammu for the offences under sections 454, 380 read with Section 201 of the RPC.”

“Statement of Sonika Chib (petitioner No. 2); Age: 41 years W/o Aman Singh Chib R/o 9-B/B Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on oath on 09.03.2022:

Stated that my father-in-law-Karan Singh Chib (petitioner No. 1), who is the owner of house and shop situated at 9-B/B Ext. Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, had a dispute with Sourav Goswami (respondent No. 3) with regard to the possession of the above mentioned shop. This dispute led to the filing of Civil and Criminal litigations by