Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Arayavir Singh – Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K and Another – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 669 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashment of FIRs - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Sections 451, 354, 504, 506, 341, 323, 384, 34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs registered under various sections of the IPC. The court referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the crime, the distinction between private and serious offences, and the possibility of conviction. The court concluded that the FIRs were predominantly civil in nature and had been amicably settled outside the Court, leading to the quashing of the FIRs and the consequent criminal challan/charge-sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The parties had entered into a compromise and settled their disputes, leading to the quashment of FIRs registered against the petitioners for various offences under the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIRs were predominantly civil in nature and had been amicably settled outside the Court, leading to the quashing of the FIRs and the consequent criminal challan/charge-sheet.
Issues: The issues involved the invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIRs and the consideration of the nature and gravity of the crime, the distinction between private and serious offences, and the possibility of conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the crime, the distinction between private and serious offences, and the possibility of conviction, to quash the FIRs and the consequent criminal challan/charge-sheet.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIRs in question, as well as the consequent criminal challan/charge-sheet arising out of the impugned FIRs.
JUDGMENT :
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
CRM (M) Nos. 669/2021 and 120/2021
1. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (previously Section 561-A Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioners in both the petitions for quashment of FIR No. 103/2019 dated 09.11.2019, registered with Police Station, Majalta at the instance of respondent No. 2, namely, Nirmal for commission of offences under Sections 451, 354, 504 and 506 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Munsiff, Majalta in CRM (M) No. 669/2021 and also quashment of FIR No. 09/2020 dated 19.01.2020, registered with the same Police Station at the instance of respondent No. 2, namely, Aryavir Singh for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 384, 34, 504 and 506 IPC in CRM (M) No. 120/2021.
2. The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIRs had got registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, namely, Nirmal in CRM (M) No. 669/2021 and respondent No. 2, namely, Aryavir Singh in CRM (M) No. 120/2021 against the petitioners.
3. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties, the petitioners, as also the respondent No. 2, namely, Nirmal and Aryavir Singh in both the petitions in terms of order dated 24.03.2022 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 in both the petitions have been recorded on 24.03.2022 by the Registrar Judicial. The same are extracted and reproduced hereunder:
“Statement of Nirmal [petitioner in CRM (M) No. 120/2021 and respondent No. 2 in CRM (M) No. 669/2021] D/o Angrez Singh; Age: 26 years; R/o Battal, Tehsil Majalta, District Udhampur on oath on 24.03.2022:
Stated that Aryavir [petitioner in CRM (M) No. 669/2021] and myself have filed cross FIRs against each other under different Sections of IPC. We have amicably settled all disputes and issues out of Court. Now, I have no grievance against him. I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR No. 09/2020 dated 19.01.2020 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 384/34, 504 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Majalta and further, I have no objection in case Hon'ble Court quashes the criminal challan/charge-sheet titled State versus Aryavir Singh arising out of FIR No. 103/2019 dated 09.11.2019 for offences under Sections 451, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Majalta and is pending before the Court of learned Munsiff, Majalta.”
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Before proceeding to settle the petition finally on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2, namely, Nirmal in CRM (M) No. 669/2021and Aryavir Singh in CRM (M) No. 120/2021, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.
5. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 3
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the distinction bet....
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 inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings or FIR on the ground of settlement between the offender and the victim, as guided b....
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash FIRs in cases where the dispute is predominantly civil and a compromise has been reached, provided the possi....
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 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 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 of....
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code even for non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a settlement, provided that continuing th....
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....
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
