Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Nitin Sharma & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. – Respondents
CRM(M) No. 616 of 2021 C of W CRM(M) No. 341 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Compromise Deed - Criminal Proceedings - IPC 354, 452, 506, 392, 458, 323, 34 - The court discussed the guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings based on the settlement between the parties and the nature of the offenses. It emphasized that in cases with predominantly civil flavor and private wrongs, the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of securing conviction is remote due to the settlement between the parties. The court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIRs and proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged FIRs for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered with the Police Station, Katra. The complainants in both FIRs entered into a compromise, expressing their desire not to pursue the prosecutions against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties and the nature of the offenses warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings. It held that continuing the prosecutions would amount to great injustice and an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the power to quash the criminal proceedings, especially when some of the offenses were non-compoundable in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that in cases with predominantly civil flavor and private wrongs, the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of securing conviction is remote due to the settlement between the parties.
Final Decision: Both the petitions were allowed, and the FIRs for various offenses under the IPC, along with the proceedings, were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. In CRM(M) No.616//2021, the petitioners have challenged FIR No.130/2021 for offences under Section 354, 452, 506 and 392 IPC registered with Police Station, Katra. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be petitioner No.2 in CRM(M) No.341/2022. In CRM(M) No.341/2022, the petitioners have challenged FIR No.119/2021 for offences under Section 458, 323, 34 IPC registered with the same Police Station i.e Police Station Katra which has been lodged by petitioner No.2 in CRM(M) No. 616/2021.
2. Briefly stated, the allegations in FIR No.119/2021 are that on 01.07.2021, the accused persons trespassed into the hotel of complainant and started beating the complainant with fists, blows and kicks due to which the complainant got injured. On hue and cry, some persons reached on spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons.
3. The allegations leveled by the complainant in FIR No.130/2021 are that on the same day i.e on 01.07.2021, the accused persons criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant with lathis and sharp edged weapons with an intention to kill the complainant and her sons and they gave a beating to them with fists and blows, as a result of which, the complainant got injured.
4. During the pendency of these two petitions, the parties have entered into a compromise and have placed on record original compromise deed.
5. As per the compromise deed, which has been executed on 08.04.2022, the parties have settled their disputes amicably as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the executants do not want to pursue the impugned FIRs. The compromise deed has been executed by complainants and the accused persons in both the FIRs. The complainants have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 02.08.2022, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
7. So far as the facts alleged in both the petitions, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed dated 08.04.2022, are concerned, the same are not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, some of the offences are noncompoundable. In the backdrop of this position, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners of both the petitions are non-compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering this aspect, has observed as under:
'57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:
The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint 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. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in natur
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases with predominantly civil flavor and private wrongs, the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the possibil....
Supreme Court has clearly observed that it would amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, criminal proceedings are allowed to continue.
(1) High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if it is known that because of compromise arrived at between parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction o....
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes if a compromise is reached, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of process.
The High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in cases with predominantly civil flavor and where the wrong is private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their ent....
The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences when the parties have reached a settlement, provided that the nature of the dispute is predomina....
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....
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
