##PAGE1##

Sr. No. 128

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRM(M) No. 669/2024

CrlM No. 1340/2024

Rahul Dhar & An r …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate

Mr. Kunal Saini, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K & Anr .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy AG for R-1

Mr. Sumit Khajuria, Advocate vice

Mr. Pawan Khajuria, Advocate for R-2

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

ORDER (ORAL)

29.12.2025

1. It was brought to the notice of the Court on the previous date of hearing

that the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.2/complainant have

already arrived at a mutual settlement in respect of the dispute that had led

to the registration of the impugned case FIR No. 0080/2024 dated

27.07.2024 registered with Police Station Pucca Danga, Jammu against the

petitioners. The statements of the petitioner/accused No.1 and the

respondent No.2/complainant stand already recorded in the Registry on

22.12.2025 pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 16.12.2025.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private parties that since the

private parties being represented by them i.e the petitioners/accused and the

respondent No.2/complainant have entered into a mutual settlement in

respect of the subject matter of the case FIR, as such, the instant petition be

allowed and the impugned case FIR be quashed so that same shall facilitate

2 CRM(M) No. 669/2024

the private parties to end up their hostility and settle their life as per their

own choice. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 and the

respondent No.2/complainant both stand married and are living their

respective matrimonial life peacefully.

3. The impugned case FIR appears to have been registered pursuant to the

complaint of the respondent No.2 dated 27.07.2024 regarding her being

sexually assaulted by the petitioner No.1 with the aid of petitioner No.2 on

the false pretext of marriage.

4. The statements of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 stand

recorded by the learned Registrar Judicial in attestation of the mutual

settlement between the private parties. The said statements are placed on

the record of the file.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/UT that the

matter may be dealt with in accordance with the law notwithstanding the

mutual settlement between the private parties as they cannot be allowed to

take the law in their hands to the prejudice of the society.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that it may meet the ends of justice, in case, the instant petition is

allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed. The quashment of the impugned

case FIR shall facilitate the private parties to settle their life as per their

own choice, besides preventing them from being humiliated on account of

cumbrous trial if allowed to go.

7. Although this Court is of the opinion that criminal proceedings or FIR or

Complaint cannot be generally and in routine manner allowed to be

quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS

3 CRM(M) No. 669/2024

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 challan 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 qu