Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Nazir Ahmed and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and Others – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 299 of 2021
Decided On : 05-06-2023
INHERENT JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF FIRs - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482; Indian Penal Code, Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 34 - The court discussed the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash FIRs, emphasizing that such power can be exercised even for non-compoundable offences when the parties have reached a compromise. The court highlighted the principles established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the nature of offences and the impact of compromise on the continuation of criminal proceedings. The court concluded that allowing prosecutions to continue despite a settlement would constitute an abuse of process of law.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitions were filed seeking to quash counter FIRs arising from a single incident involving allegations of assault and abuse between the parties. The complainants, Tariq Iqbal and Razia Begum, had filed FIRs against each other, but later entered into a compromise, expressing their desire not to pursue the cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and that continuing the criminal proceedings would result in injustice. The court acknowledged the non-compoundable nature of some offences but emphasized the importance of the compromise in this context.
Issues: Whether the court has the power to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences when the parties have reached a compromise, and whether continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established principles from previous Supreme Court rulings, asserting that the inherent power to quash FIRs can be exercised in cases with a predominantly civil character, especially when the parties have settled their disputes, and that the possibility of conviction is remote.
Final Decision: Both petitions were allowed, and the FIRs along with further proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. The two petitions, invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed by petitioners/accused in two counter FIRs first filed on the complaint of one Tariq Iqbal and the second by Razia Begum seeking quashing of both the FIRs.
2. The respondent No. 3 in CRM(M) No. 299/2021 had got registered a case against the petitioners Nazir Ahmed and others vide FIR No. 130/2021 on 15.05.2021 at Police Station Domana for the commission of offences punishable under sections 452/323/147/148 IPC, whereas respondent No. 2 Razia Begum in CRM(M) No. 311/2021 had filed a case which was registered vide FIR No. 141/2021 at the same police station on 25.05.2021 for commission of offences punishable under sections 452/323/504/506/34 IPC against Nazir Hussain and others. The second FIR registered on the complaint of Razia Begum seems to be counterblast to the earlier FIR registered on the complaint of Tariq Iqbal, however, both the cases arise out of same incident and cause of action.
3. The official respondents filed the status report in both the cases. However, during pendency of these petitions, the private parties entered into a compromise which was executed between the complainants in both the cases i.e. Tariq Iqbal and Razia Begum. Their statements in support of the compromise were also recorded by the learned Registrar Judicial as per directions of the Court.
4. The facts which lead to the filing of CRM(M) No. 299/2021 are that on 14.05.2021, the respondent No. 3 parked his Scorpio car in front of the house of the petitioners 3 and 6; and when petitioner No. 6, Razia Begum objected to parking of the car in front of her house, respondent No. 3 along with two/three persons hurled filthy abuses and assaulted her. As a result whereof, she sustained injuries; and that as she was getting her treatment, respondent No. 3 in the meantime lodged a false and frivolous FIR against the petitioners which is impugned in the petition. Whereas, the facts as stated in CRM(M) No. 311/2021, are that petitioner No. 1 is the resident of Mendhar Poonch and have purchased a plot of land at Gurha Brahmana Bantalab, Jammu over which he has constructed a residential house; that the respondent no. 2-Razia Begum lodged the impugned FIR in order to scuttle the proceedings in the FIR No. 130/2021 lodged by the son of the petitioner No. 1, who has been mercilessly beaten by the family members of the respondent No. 2.
5. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 02.06.2021 in CRM(M) No. 299/2021 and on 04.06.2021 in CRM(M) No. 311/2021 allowed the investigation in the FIR to go ahead, however, presentation of challan was made subject to the permission of this Court. It is stated that the complainants in both the cases i.e. Tariq Iqbal and Razia Begum have entered into a compromise, wherein, inter alia, it has been resolved and agreed by them that after lodging FIRs against each others, they have executed a compromise deed and have amicably settled their grievance between them and are not interested in pursuing the impugned FIRs lodged by them against each others. A copy of the compromise deed dated 29th February, 2022 has also been placed on record.
6. On 09.02.2023, the parties were directed to record their statements in support of their compromise, in compliance whereof, Tariq Iqbal as well as Razia Begum got their statements recorded before the learned Registrar Judicial on 23.05.2023. Both the parties were identified by their respective counsels. In their statements, complainants in both the cases have stated that they have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with each other. It has also been stated by the complainants in their statements that they do not want to pursue the impugned FIRs filed by them against each other.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. So far as the facts alleged in petition pertaining to the compromise arr
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 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 High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes if a compromise is reached, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of process.
(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 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 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.
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
