Sr. No. 8 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CrlM No.1650/2025 Avinash Ratta and another …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Adnan Mushtaq, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 and 2 Mr. Koushal Parihar, Advocate for R-3 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

09.12.2025

1. The private parties i.e. petitioners/accused and the respondent No.3/complainant are also present in person.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private parties that they have already settled the civil dispute amicably that had led to the registration of the impugned case FIR bearing No.70/2019 dated 12.07.2019 of Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu and the consequent charge-sheet/final report No.107/2019 dated 24.12.2019 titled „UT of J&K vs Avinash Ratta and another‟ pending trial before the Court of learned Railway Magistrate, Jammu. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings by allowing this petition may meet the ends of justice by bringing at rest the animosity between the private parties and by preventing the multiplicity of litigation between them.

3. The private parties present in person submitted in the open Court that they have mutually settled the civil dispute arising out of a sale agreement that had led to the registration of the impugned FIR. It is submitted by them that they have also executed a formal compromise deed dated 21.08.2025.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the matter may be dealt with in accordance with the law notwithstanding the mutual settlement between the private parties because the quashment of the criminal proceedings at the sweet wish of the private parties is likely to result in the miscarriage of justice by allowing the criminals to take the law in their own hands.

5. 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. FIR No.70/2019 dated 12.07.2019 of Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu along with the consequent charge- sheet/final report arising out of the same and presently pending trial in the Court of learned Railway Magistrate, Jammu are quashed, as the same is likely to facilitate the future cordial relations between the private parties and will also end the long run civil litigation between them.

6. Registry is directed to record the statements of the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.3/complainant in attestation of their mutual settlement upon their identification.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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