Sr. No. 88 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Rafaqat Ali and o thers …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Rahoof Khan, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG Mr. Akeel Wani, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

05.12.2025

1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under the provisions of Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioners have sought the quashment of the charge-sheet in case titled “UT of J&K vs Rafaqat Ali & others” bearing case FIR No.31/2025 dated 17.04.2025 of Police Station City, Jammu pending disposal in the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu on the main grounds that same is the outcome of the FIR that came to be registered on the basis of false and frivolous complaint. That petitioner No.1 and the private respondent No.3/complainant are the childhood friends and the FIR basing the impugned charge-sheet came to be registered on the basis of the false and frivolous complaint of respondent No.3/complainant when he took otherwise the advice and reprimand of the petitioners regarding his immoral acts. That the impugned charge-sheet is the outcome of abuse and misuse of process of law.

2. The learned counsel for the private parties i.e. the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.3/complaint have already submitted at the first hearing of the case on 31.10.2025 that the said parties have amicably settled the dispute that had led to the registration of the FIR resulting in the impugned charge-sheet.

3. The statements of the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.3/complainant stand already recorded in attestation of their amicable settlement on 10/13.11.2025.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private parties that since the private parties who were already known to each other and were like family members have compromised, as such the instant petition be allowed for quashment of the impugned charge-sheet as the same shall meet the ends of justice by facilitating the restoration of cordial relations between them.

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 pursuant to the mutual settlement between the parties and the impugned charge-sheet 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 pleased to lay down s