HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M. A. Chowdhary, J
SHABIR AHMAD BHAT AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANANTNAG AND ORS. (POLICE / HOME) – Respondent
CRM (M) No. 505/2025 | CrlM Nos. 1214/2025 & 1940/2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing is necessary to prevent abuse of process in private disputes. (Para 10) |
| 2. fir quashed based on compromise. (Para 11 , 12) |
(JUDGMENT)
01. Through the medium of the instant Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the Petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station, Women’s Cell, Anantnag for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as any other proceedings, if any, initiated in consequence thereof.
02. On a bare perusal of the pleadings available on record, more particularly the FIR impugned, it appears that a matrimonial discord arose between the Petitioner No.3 herein and Respondent No.4 herein, resulting into registration of the impugned FIR, wherein the Respondent No.4, besides her husband-Petitioner No.3 herein, also arraigned Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (parents of the Petitioner No.3) and Petitioner No.4 (sister of Petitioner No.3) as well.
03. During the pendency of the present Petition before this Court, the Petitioners moved an application bearing CrlM No. 1940/2025 seeking disposal of the main Petition in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, stating therein that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and issues between them by way of compromise. In this regard, compromise deed dated 10th of November, 2025 has been placed on record as Annexure-I with the said application.
04. Given the above position, this Court, in terms of Order dated 16th of December, 2025, directed the learned Registrar Judicial to examine the parties. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the parties have recorded their statements before the learned Registrar Judicial on 18th of December, 2025 and same have been placed on record along with this file.
05. The statements so made by the parties, on being examined by the learned Registrar Judicial, indicate that the parties have amicably resolved all the disputes and issues in between themselves with regard to the FIR subject matter of this Petition. The parties have further stated that they have no grievance as against each other and, by way of their statements, have stated ‘no objection’ to the plea of quashing the FIR in question.
06. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record.
07. Insofar as the facts pleaded in the present Petition pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed executed on 10th of November, 2025 are concerned, the same are not disputed. It is also relevant to point out that the averments in the FIR disclose the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 384 IPC. However, according to the parties, the offences of which the accused/Petitioners herein have been charged are non-compoundable. In the backdrop of this position, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable in nature.
08. In this regard, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case titled ‘Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana V. State of Gujarat & Anr.; 2012 (12) SCC 401’, while considering this aspect has observed as follows:
“7) The only question for consideration before this Court at this stage is that inasmuch as all those offences are not compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code (except Section 420 of Indian Pena Code that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
8) The above question was recently considered by this Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705. The question posed in that case was “Whether the criminal proceedings in question could be quas
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.