Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHAN LAL, J.
Romesh Chander and Others – Petitioners
Versus
UT of J&K and Another – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 276 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2023
INHERENT JURISDICTION - QUASHMENT OF CHALLAN - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 353, 34 IPC - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing that such powers can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process. The court highlighted the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, which allow for quashing in cases where a compromise has been reached and the possibility of conviction is remote.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash Challan No. 74/2020 arising from FIR No. 131/2020, alleging offences under Sections 353 and 34 IPC. They claimed undue harassment due to the pending case, which was not pursued by the complainant, Respondent No. 2. A compromise agreement was executed between the parties, resolving all disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and that the continuation of the proceedings would serve no purpose, as the complainant did not wish to pursue the case. The court noted that the charges were yet to be framed, and the trial had not commenced, making it appropriate to quash the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the court has the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC when some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable, and whether the compromise between the parties justifies quashing the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents establishing that inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised to quash proceedings when the parties have settled their disputes, particularly when the possibility of conviction is remote and the case has a civil flavor. The court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the offences and the stage of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Challan No. 74/2020 was quashed in light of the compromise between the parties, with directions for compliance sent to the lower court.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN LAL, J.
1. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the 'Code'), the petitioners by instant petition seek quashment of the Challan No. 74/2020 titled UT of J&K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hiranagar, arising out of FIR No. 131/2020, dated 13.07.2020 registered against them in Police Station Rajbagh, District Kathua for the commission of offences punishable under sections 353, 34 IPC.
2. It is averred, that the Challan No. 74/2020 titled UT of J&K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hiranagar, arising out of FIR No. 131/2020, dated 13.07.2020 registered against the petitioners by Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2 pending disposal before the learned JMIC Hiranagar is causing undue inconvenience and harassment to the petitioners as well as Respondent No. 2 as the Respondent No. 2 do not want to pursue the challan impugned, the same requires to be quashed; that Petitioner No. 1 is an old age man and is the father of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are facing undue inconvenience and harassment due to the pendency of the challan impugned before the court of law; that Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are employed in paramilitary force and their entire service career is at stake and keeping in view the young age and employment of the petitioners the challan impugned requires to be quashed.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2023, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties, the same are placed on record which read as under:
“Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Sansar Singh (Respondent No. 2). A compromise agreement dated 26.03.2023, duly attested and registered on 26.03.2023 by Notary Public, Kathua, has also been executed between me and Sansar Singh (Respondent No. 2) in this regard and the same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash Challan No. 74/2020 titled UT of J&K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. pending before the Munsiff JMIC, Hiranagar, District Kathua, for the commission of offence under sections 353 & 34 IPC, in pursuance of FIR No. 131/2020, dated 13.07.2020, lodged in Police Station Rajbagh, District Kathua.”
Statement of Romesh Chander (Petitioner No. 1); Age; 66 years; S/o Sh. Mansa Ram R/o Village Chapaki Kalan, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua on oath today i.e. 15.04.2023:
“Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Sansar Singh (Respondent No. 2). A compromise agreement dated 26.03.2023, duly attested and registered on 26.03.2023 by Notary Public, Kathua, has also been executed between me and Sansar Singh (respondent No. 2) in this regard and the same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash Challan No. 74/2020 titled UT of J&K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. pending before the Munsiff JMIC, Hiranagar, District Kathua, for the commission of offence under sections 353 & 34 IPC, in pursuance of FIR No. 131/2020, dated 13.07.2020, lodged in Police Station Rajbagh, District Kathua.”
Statement of Ajay Kumar (Petitioner No. 3); Age; 38 years; S/o Sh. Romesh Chander; R/o Village Chapaki Kalan, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua on oath today i.e. 15.04.2023:
“Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Sansar Singh (Respondent No. 2). A compromise agreement dated 26.03.2023, duly attested and registered on 26.03.2023 by Notary Public, Kathua, has also been executed between me and Sansar Singh (Respondent No. 2) in this regard and the same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble
The High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reached a compromise, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, provided ....
FIR under Section 307 IPC not quashable on compromise if charge-sheet evidences grievous life-endangering injuries from deadly weapons, establishing prima facie heinous offence against society.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have settled their disputes, provided that the possibilit....
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, even if the offence is non-compoundable, in accordance with the settled propositions by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 if they are personal in nature and the parties have settled their disputes amicably, ensuring no adverse effect on public interest....
Offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and heinous, lacking the possibility of being quashed based on private compromise. Hence, societal interest in prosecuting such crimes prevails.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, even if the offences are non-compoun....
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
