Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(J&K) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Karan Singh & Ors – Appellant
versus
Union Territory of J&K & Ors – Respondent
CRM(M) No. 76 of 2025
Decided on : 1203-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Satyajeet, Advocate Petitioner No.1 also present in person
For the Respondent:Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy AG Respondent No.4 also present in person

The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under inherent powers if the parties have amicably settled their disputes, even for non-compoundable offences.

Headnote:
(A) B.N.S.S (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) - Sections 498-A and 109 RPC - Quashment of proceedings - Petitioners sought quashment of charge-sheet based on a compromise with the complainant, asserting that the FIR does not disclose any offence - The court emphasized the need to balance fundamental rights and the court's power to take cognizance - The inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes amicably, particularly in cases with a civil flavor. (Paras 1, 7, 10, 11)

(B) Compounding of offences - The court noted that while offences under Section 498-A are non-compoundable, the inherent powers under Section 482 allow for quashing if the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of proceedings would cause oppression. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were charged under Sections 498-A and 109 RPC based on an FIR alleging dowry-related cruelty. A compromise was reached between the petitioners and the complainant, who no longer wished to pursue the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the compromise was valid and that the FIR and proceedings were quashed in light of the amicable resolution.

Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR disclosed any offence and the implications of the compromise on the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inherent powers of the High Court can quash proceedings when the parties have settled their disputes, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

PRAYER

1. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking quashment of the proceedings in Challan/Charge-sheet bearing File No.94/2018 titled State of J&K vs Karan Singh & Ors, arising out of FIR No. 07/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, by respondent No.4, for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC, pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.4, on the following grounds:

a) That the impugned charge sheet/challan is bad in the eyes of law and is abused the process of law so the same is liable to be quashed outrightly.

b) That the impugned FIR on the chargesheet/challan does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners, as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed outrightly.

c) That the petitioners and respondent no. 4 have already arrived on compromise in the year 2016 and since then, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 are living together at house of petitioner no. 1 and during their stay together with each two children i.e. a male child namely Ahil Singh in the year 2016 and a female child namely Mahira Singh in the year 2019. The petitioners alongwith respondent no. 4 has also reported compromised arrived between them, before respondent no.3, but investigation was not dropped and challan was presented before the Ld. Court, as such the impugned proceedings in impugned Challan are liable to be quashed.

d) That the petitioners and petitioner no. 4 i.e. complainant in impugned FIR have already arrived on a compromise in the year 2016 i.e. before the filing of final charge sheet/challan before the Ld. Court below and have executed a compromise deed, as such the chances of conviction in the case are remote, as such the FIR alongwith proceedings in final charge sheet/challan are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into by the petitioners and respondent no. 4.

e) That the petitioners have already appraised the Ld. Trial Court regarding the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent no.4, but as the offence u/s 498-A R.P.C. is non- compoundable, the Ld. Court below has not dropped the proceedings or discharged the petitioners in the challan. The charges have not yet been framed in the challan, as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

f) That just balance between fundamental rights of the citizen under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and exclusive power of the Court to take cognizance has to be struck by this Hon’ble court. Any FIR with such allegations is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S (corresponding to section 482 of Cr.P.C.) or Article 226 of Constitution of India. On this count, the petition as prayed for deserves to be allowed and proceedings in the impugned charge sheet/challan are liable to be quashed.

g)That the case has been registered u/s 498-A and 109 RPC but the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR does not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.4, on 14.02.2014, lodged a FIR No. 07/2014 against the petitioners and one Chuni Lal at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC. The allegation leveled in the aforesaid FIR are that at the time of solemnization of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, several items including gold ornaments were given by the parents of respondent No.4, to the petitioners as dowry. However, after the marriage, the petitioners subjected the respondent No.4 to cruelties for demand of dowry.

3. After completion of the investigation, the I.O presented the charge-sheet/challan before the competent Court of law which is pending before the Cou