Sr. No. 171 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Jatinder Singh an d Anr. …..Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

11.12.2025

01. Petitioner No.1 is present in person too.

02. Through the medium of the instant petition having been filed under and in terms of the provisions of Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioners have sought the quashment of the FIR No. 0004/2022 dated 09.01.2022 of Police Station Satwari, Jammu as well as the subsequent charge-sheet/final report bearing File No. 907/2022 dated 22.06.2022, pending trial in the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC titled “UT of J&K vs. Manmeet Singh” on the main grounds that they i.e. petitioners who are very close childhood friends having family relations were travelling in the same car JK02CA-1860 on 09.01.2022, which was being driven by the petitioner No.2 namely Manmeet Singh. That unfortunately, the vehicle met an accident due to the bad condition of the road which resulted in the injuries, caused to both of the petitioners. That the impugned case FIR came to be registered by the respondent-UT which after investigation culminated in the filing of the final report/charge-sheet pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. That the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the injured/prosecution witness in the case when the petitioner No.2 stands arrayed as the accused in the case. That they being childhood friends approached the learned trial Court seeking compromise in the criminal case but they could not succeed as the offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable under law.

03. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the quashment of the criminal proceedings in the case shall meet the ends of justice as there is otherwise no prospect of the case ending in conviction having regard to the stand of the petitioner No.1 being the injured and the star prosecution witness in the case. It is submitted that the statement of petitioner No.1/injured stands already recorded by the Registry, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 28.11.2025.

04. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner No.2 is not present in person as he is doing some job outside the country and is being represented by him under the authority of a power of attorney (Vakalatnama).

05. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice, in case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned case FIR bearing No. 0004/2022 dated 09.01.2022 is quashed along with subsequent charge-sheet/final report bearing File No. 907/2022 dated 22.06.2022 titled “UT of J&K vs. Manmeet Singh” pending disposal in the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu.

06. 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.

07. 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.

08. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with an authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as “Gopal Kumar B. Nar Vs.