Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(J&K) 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Sheikh Feroz Ahmad - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & Ors. - Respondents
CRM(M) No. 104 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Syed Faisal Qadri; Salih Pirzada.
For the Respondent: Sajad Ashraf; R.A. Jan; Aswad Attar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the parties have reached a settlement, even in cases involving serious offences, if the continuation of proceedings would be unjust and contrary to the interests of justice.

Headnote:
INHERENT POWER - QUASHING OF FIRs - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Sections 307, 323, 447, 452, 392, 506 IPC - The court discussed the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs, emphasizing that while some offences are non-compoundable, the court can still quash proceedings if the dispute is of a private nature and a compromise has been reached. The court highlighted the need to consider the nature of the offences and the possibility of conviction, ultimately deciding that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process given the parties' settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged two FIRs lodged against each other stemming from a business dispute over their partnership in a hotel. Following the dissolution of their partnership, both parties filed FIRs alleging various offences against one another. The court previously stayed the investigation into one FIR, and during the proceedings, the parties reached a compromise and sought to quash the FIRs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably settled their disputes and expressed a desire to restore their relationship. It noted that the nature of the offences, particularly the serious charge under Section 307 IPC, did not warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings given the circumstances and the compromise reached.
Issues: Whether the court has the power to quash the FIRs despite some offences being non-compoundable, and whether the compromise between the parties justifies quashing the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents establishing that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the parties have settled their disputes, provided that the nature of the offences does not pose a significant threat to society. The court emphasized that the possibility of conviction must be remote for quashing to be appropriate.
Final Decision: The court allowed both petitions and quashed FIR No. 24/2022 and FIR No. 15/2022, concluding that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law given the parties' settlement.

JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.

1. Through the medium of present petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged two FIRs lodged against each other i.e., FIR No. 24/2022 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 452, 392, 506 IPC registered with Police Station Pahalgam against petitioner in CRM(M) No. 104/2022 and FIR No. 15/2022 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 447, 307 IPC registered with Police Station Nowhatta, Srinagar, against petitioners in CRM(M) No. 263/2022.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to filing of aforesaid petitions arising out of the impugned FIRs are that the petitioners and the respondents in the aforementioned petitions happened to be the business partners, running Hotel business under the name 'M/s. Hotel Royal Hilton', however, on some business dispute between the parties, the partnership came to be dissolved w.e.f., 09.04.2021 by virtue of dissolution issued by Sheikh Feroz Ahmad-petitioner in CRM(M) No. 104/2022. Consequently, the petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be filed before the court of learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar, wherein certain orders came to be passed restraining the erstwhile partners from operating the Bank accounts of the Firm without permission of the Court. In this regard a civil suit, for grant of permanent injunction, was also filed by the erstwhile partners before the court of learned Additional District Judge Anantnag, wherein it has been admitted that Sheikh Feroz Ahmad- petitioner in CRM(M) No. 104/2022 is having 20% share in the property in question.

3. Argument of learned counsel for the contesting parties is that the dispute between the parties of the erstwhile Firm was purely of a civil nature but unfortunately the same has been given a criminal colour by filing the impugned FIRs. This Court, vide order dated 13.04.2022 passed in CRM(M) No.104/2022, stayed the investigation in the FIR No. 24/2022.

4. Parties, by virtue of both the petitions filed against each other, are seeking quashment of the aforesaid impugned FIRs.

5. During the pendency of both the petitions, subsequent development has taken place i.e., parties have entered into compromise after they unanimously decided to put the entire controversy to rest. In this regard application bearing Crl.M.No.798/2022 came to be filed and in order to settle the issues, fresh deed of reconstitution of partnership business has been incorporated, copy whereof is annexed with the said application.

6. In terms of order dated 18.07.2022, this Court, in proof of the terms of compromise, directed the parties to get their statements recorded before the learned Registrar Judicial. Accordingly, statements were recorded and are placed on record.

7. On perusal of the statements already recorded of the parties, all in one voice have stated that they have entered into compromise and have no grievance against each other; further they have stated that they do not want to prosecute the criminal cases against each other, thus, seek disposal of the aforesaid petitions in light of the said compromise.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material placed on record and considered.

9. A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the parties, are non-compoundable in nature.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions have relied upon certain judgments, more particularly, Supreme Court judgment titled Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303. While considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed which are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion ca