The court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the parties have mutually settled their disputes, emphasizing the need for justice and preventing abuse of process.

ORDER :

1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under the provisions of Section 528 of by Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS” for short), the petitioner has sought the quashment of the FIR bearing No. 150 of 2022 registered with the Police Station, Lalpora Kupwara under Sections 354 and 341 IPC along with the consequential proceedings, on the main grounds that he i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 i.e., complainant being relatives and neighbours have mutually settled their controversy that had led to the registration of the impugned FIR and other civil litigations; that they have in furtherance of their mutual settlement facilitated through the intervention of their elders, executed a formal compromise deed; that the petitioner has been able to get some job in Kuwait in connection whereof he has to leave the country; that the respondent No. 4/complainant is a young girl of marriageable age and it is as such in the interest of both the parties that FIR in question be quashed on the basis of their mutual settlement and that this Court has extraordinary powers to quash the criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice especially in a situation where the complainant and accused being related to each other have settled their controversy mutually and want to have a cordial relation.

2. This Court vide its order dated 21.12.2024 passed in this petition directed the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to appear in person before the Court for getting their statements recorded in attestation of the petition. The proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR were also directed to remain stayed in the meantime.

3. The statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been recorded by the learned Registrar Judicial upon their proper identification by their respective counsels on 03.03.2025. The concerned parties through their statements recorded by the Registry pursuant to the direction of this Court have fully supported the averments of the petition to the effect that they being close relatives have already settled their disputes which had led to the registration of the impugned FIR as well as other civil litigations. They have admitted the execution of a compromise deed dated 03.12.2024, a copy whereof has been placed on the file. Both of them have sought the quashment of the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no bar under law for quashment of an FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom in a situation where the complainant and the accused being closely related to each other have settled their dispute/controversy that had led to the occurrence resulting in the registration of the FIR.

He submitted that the quashment of the criminal proceedings in justified circumstances does not circumvent or invade the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for compounding of offences.

6. The learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4/complainant submitted that hehas no objection in allowing the petition and quashing the FIR in question as complainant and the petitioner have admittedly entered into a mutual settlement in respect of their disputes. He also submitted that the quashment of the FIR as prayed for shall suit the interests of both the parties as they are closely related, besides being neighbours.

7. The learned State Counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner/accused is involved in the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 341 IPC out of which the offence under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. He submitted that the quashment of criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences is likely to cause miscarriage of justice. The learned State Counsel opposed the prayer of the petitioner and sought the dismissal of