Sr. No. 166 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU c/w CRM(M) No.863/2021 CRM(M) No.480/2022 Bodh Raj and othCR ers …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Manjeet Pratap Singh, Advocate Vs Union Territory of J&K and another .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Assisting Counsel to Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1.

Respondent No.2/complainant present in person.

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

ORDER

11.12.2025

1. Respondent No.2/complainant-Neha Kumari is present in person.

2. All these three matters stand clubbed together on account of the fact that criminal proceedings by way of case FIR bearing No.0035/2021 dated 18.07.2021 of Police Station, Womens Cell, Jammu, a complaint in terms of provisions of Domestic Violence Act and a complaint under Sections 406/506 IPC against the petitioners stand initiated by and at the instance of the respondent/complainant namely, Neha Kumari. All the matters appear to be outcome of a matrimonial dispute.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the matters that the private parties i.e. the petitioners/accused and the respondent/complainant namely, Neha Kumari have mutually settled the matrimonial dispute that has led to the registration of the impugned case FIR and the filing of other impugned petition/complaint. It is submitted that the respondent/complainant namely Neha Kumari has been wedded to the son of the petitioner No.4-Jagdish Raj namely Sh. Ram Paul and after the amicable settlement they have been living cordially as wife and husband. It is submitted that quashment of the impugned FIR and other complaints is likely to meet the ends of justice by facilitating the reunion between two spouses for leading a cordial further matrimonial life.

4. The private parties are present in person before the Court also testified the fact of their having amicably settled the matrimonial dispute. It is submitted by the respondent/complainant namely Neha Kumari that she has returned to the wedlock of her husband and has been living peacefully at her matrimonial home.

5. 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, all the three petitions are allowed and the impugned case FIR as well as other petition and complaint are quashed.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.”

9. 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 pl