Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Tariq Ahmad Waza – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K Thr. SHO Ganderbal – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 66 of 2021
Decided on : 06-10-2021
INHERENT JURISDICTION - QUASHMENT OF FIR - Sections 354, 323, 392, 506, 201 IPC; Section 482 CrPC - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that these powers are to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The court highlighted that the nature of the offences alleged were predominantly civil in nature, and the compromise between the parties indicated a remote possibility of conviction, thus justifying the quashment of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Firemen Driver, was accused of assaulting the respondent and stealing her belongings. The FIR was lodged after a delay, and the petitioner claimed he was at work during the alleged incident. A compromise was reached between the parties after the FIR was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was based on a dispute with a civil flavor and that the compromise indicated a bleak possibility of conviction. The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from previous Supreme Court judgments, stating that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash FIRs when the dispute is predominantly civil and a compromise has been reached, especially when the possibility of conviction is remote.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR No. 328/2020 and the related criminal proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 CrPC is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No. 328/2020 dated 24.11.2020, registered at Police Station, Ganderbal, Kashmir, under Sections 354, 323, 392, 506, 201 IPC 1860.
2. The background facts, those stem out from the petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is working in Fire Service Emergency Department, Kashmir, as a Firemen Driver. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 due to some misunderstanding lodged a complaint on 24.11.2020 alleging therein that on 21.11.2020 the petitioner pushed the respondent no. 2 inside the car and gave several blows to respondent no. 2 on her face and the respondent no. 2 started bleeding from the nose and the eye. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 also alleged that the petitioner snatched one gold bangle and a sum of Rs. 11,300/- from the respondent, besides physically abusing and assaulting her.
3. It is submitted that after registration of the FIR dated 24.11.2020, the petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2020 by respondent no. 1 and on 26.11.2020, the petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal and the court of Judicial Magistrate Ganderbal remanded the petitioner to the police custody for 15 days with effect from 26.11.2020 to 10.12.2020, which was further extended up to 29.12.2020, and ultimately the petitioner got bail on 12.12.2020. It is further submitted by the petitioner that respondent no. 1 has filed police report alleging offences under section 323, 354, 392, 506 and 201 IPC against the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the FIR bearing no. 238/2020 was lodged under section 354, 392 and 323 of the Indian penal Code and the police report has been filed in CC no. 265/2020, alleging the commission of offences under Section 354, 392, 323, 506, 201 of the IPC. It is submitted by the petitioner that the possibility of conviction under section 392 and 201 is remote and bleak as according to him there are material contradictions in statement recorded under section 164 CrPC and the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 on 24.11.2020.
5. It is submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. 21.11.2020, the petitioner was present in the office, which is evident from the register attendance, maintained by the Fire and Emergency Services department, where the petitioner is working. Further it is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has in her application dated 24.11.2020 alleged that the incident happened on 21.11.2020, while as the FIR was lodged on 24.11.2020 and that the delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, is fatal to the prosecution case and on this ground alone the possibility of conviction is miniscule. In so far as the other offences alleged under sections 354, 323, 506 against the petitioner are concerned, it is submitted that they are compoundable in nature under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As far as section 201, IPC is concerned as leveled in the Police Report, the same is prima face without any basis and is not attracted in the case.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 herein (complainant) have entered into a compromise on 5.2.2021 and that the petitioner consequently approached this court for quashing of the FIR in question and the consequential CC no. 265/2020 before the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal, Srinagar. It is submitted that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to the abuse or process of law in presence of settlement and compromise between the parties.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission in tune with the stand taken in the petition, reiterating the prayer for quashment of the F.I.R in question as also the criminal proceedings instituted thereupon. Le
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
