Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(J&K) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Avnit Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
UT of J&K and Another – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 120 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vishal Mahajan.
For the Respondents: Adarsh Bhagat, Amit Gupta, Rohit Gupta.

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, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2017 (9) SCC 641, which emphasized the distinction between the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR and the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code, and the evaluation of whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

Headnote:
Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashment of FIR - Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.], [Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC] - 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 considered the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the private or personal nature of the dispute, and concluded that the FIR in question related to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour, which had been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. Therefore, the court quashed the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet pending before the trial Court.
Fact of the Case:

The parties entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, leading to the quashment of FIR No. 195/2020 for offences under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR related to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour, which had been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. Therefore, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners was remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite the full and complete settlement and compromise with the respondent No. 2. The court concluded that continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR, which related to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour and had been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties, should be quashed.
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 related to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour, which had been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. Therefore, the court quashed the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet pending before the trial Court.
Final Decision: FIR No. 195/2020 dated 20.10.2020 and the consequent charge-sheet pending before the Court of learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, R.S. Pura, Jammu were 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 FIR No. 195/2020, dated 20.10.2020 for offences under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC, registered with Police Station, Miran Sahib, R.S. Pura, Jammu.

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. 2 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. 2 in terms of order dated 04.03.2022 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. 2 have been recorded on 04.03.2022 by the Registrar Judicial. The same are extracted and reproduced hereunder:

“Statement of Avnit Singh (petitioner No. 1): Age: 38 years S/o Prithpal Singh R/o Singh Pura, Maralian, Miran Sahib, Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu recorded on oath on 04.03.2022:

Stated that I married to Navneet Kour (respondent No. 2) according to Sikh rites and customs on 12.5.2020 at Jammu. No child was born out of the wedlock. In view of different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, we could not adjust and ultimately separated from each other and as such, we are living separately from last more than one year. During this period of separation, Navneet Kour (respondent No. 2) filed an application before Police Station, Miran Sahib under Section 498-A IPC against me and my family members i.e. father and mother. The said application came to be registered as FIR No. 195/2020 for offences u/s 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC. The said FIR culminated into impugned challan bearing No. 93/2020 which is pending before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, R.S. Pura. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 and I entered into a compromise whereby we mutually agreed to dissolve our marriage. A compromise agreement dated 23.3.2021 was also executed in this regard between us which is also part of the record. In view of the compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR No. 195/2020 for offences under Section 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC registered at Police Station, Miran Sahib along with challan/charge-sheet bearing No. 93/2020 arising out of the same, which is pending disposal before the Court of Learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, R.S. Pura, Jammu.

“Statement of Prithpal Singh (petitioner No. 2): Age: 64 years S/o Nain Singh R/o Singh Pura, Maralian, Miran Sahib, Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu recorded on oath on 04.03.2022:

Stated that my son-Avnit Singh (Petitioner No. 1) married to Navneet Kour (respondent No. 2) according to Sikh rites and customs on 12.5.2020 at Jammu. No child was born out of the wedlock. In view of different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, they could not adjust and ultimately separated from each other. During this period of separation, Navneet Kour (respondent No. 2) filed an application before Police Station, Miran Sahib under Section 498-A IPC against me, my wife (petitioner No. 3) and my son (petitioner No. 1). The said application came to be registered as FIR No. 195/2020 for offences u/s 498-A, 504, 506, 34 and 323 IPC. The said FIR culminated into impugned challan bearing No. 93/2020 which is pending before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, R.S. Pura. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 entered into a compromise whereby they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. A compromise agreement dated 23.3.2021 was also executed in this regard between them which is also part of the record. In view of the compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR No. 195/2020 for offences unde