Sr. No. 165 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bachan Lal and oCRt hers …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mrs. Amita Khajuria, Advocate Vs Union Territory of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Assisting Counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3.

None for R-4.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

11.12.2025

1. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under the provisions of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanihita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟ for short), the petitioners have sought the quashment of the final report/challan bearing No.20/2023 dated 12.09.2023 titled „UT of J&K Vs. Bachan Lal & Ors.‟ pending disposal in the Court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu arising out of case FIR bearing No.15/2017 dated 29.04.2017 of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu on the grounds inter-alia that the private parties i.e. the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.4/complainant have already settled the dispute amicably that had led to the registration of the case FIR in question and the filing of the impugned charge-sheet. The statements of the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.4/complainant stand already recorded by the Registry in attestation of their amicable settlement, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26.03.2025.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the private parties in the criminal case i.e. the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.4/complainant have already compromised the dispute that had led to the initiation of the criminal proceedings as such the ends of justice will be met by allowing the petition for quashment of the impugned charge-sheet.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will meet the ends of justice, in case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet is quashed as the same shall facilitate the restoration of matrimonial relation between the private parties and will also end the long-drawn litigation between them.

4. Although this Court is of the opinion that an FIR cannot be generally and in routine manner allowed to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code on the main ground that the parties have settled their controversy that had become the cause of occurrence, yet exceptional ground appears to be made out in the opinion of the Court, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, for invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in question.

5. The provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code regarding quashment of FIR‟s and criminal proceedings for the sake of the society at large which is real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system.

6. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with an authoritative judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as “Gopal Kumar B. Nar Vs. CBI (2014) 5 SCC 800” in which it has been held that “though quashment of non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties would not amount to circumvention of Section 320, but such power has to be exercised with care and caution and would depend on facts of each case.”

7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641” has considered the aspect of the invocation of the inherent powers by the High Courts under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code and was pleased to lay down some broad governing principles for invocation of such power of the High Courts. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:

“Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding