HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No.286/2021

CrlM No.1027/2021

MOHAMMAD RAMZAN BHAT & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)

Through: -

Ms. Sabeena Naveed, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ANR.

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: -

Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA-FOR R1&R2

Mr. S. M. Ayoub, Adv-for R3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

22.08.2022

1)

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking

quashment of charge sheet/challan arising out of FIR No.116/2016 for

offences under Section 498-A RPC registered with Police Station,

Saddar, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class (City

Munsiff), Srinagar.

2)

As per the prosecution case, respondent No.3, Shaila Rashid,

lodged a written report against her in-laws including the petitioners

herein, alleging therein that on 07.06.2016, she entered into a wedlock

with one Imtiyaz Ahmad, who happens to be the son of petitioner No.1

herein. It was alleged that after the marriage, the behaviour of her in-

laws changed without any reason, which resulted in strained matrimonial

Sr. No.6

Advance List

2

CRM(M) No.286/2021

CrlM No.1027/2021

relations between complainant and her husband. It was further alleged in

the complaint that the complainant was harassed and beaten up by her

in-laws and ultimately thrown her out of her matrimonial house. On the

basis of this report, the aforesaid FIR was lodged and investigation was

set into motion. After completion of the investigation, the offence under

Section 498-A RPC was found established against the accused including

the petitioners herein and, accordingly, on 19.12.2016 the challan in the

matter has been presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st

Class (City Munsiff), Srinagar.

3)

It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a

compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per the said

compromise, the parties i.e., complainant and the accused have settled

their disputes amicably and the parties, as per the compromise, now want

to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It is

further stated in the compromise deed that the complainant i.e.,

transposed respondent No.3 herein, does not want to pursue the criminal

case. The parties to the dispute i.e., petitioners herein and respondent

No.3(complainant), have made statements before the Registrar Judicial

today on 22.08.2022, wherein they have admitted the aforesaid position.

4)

The petitioners have contended that so far as the case arising out

of FIR No.116/2016, is concerned, the same could not be compounded

because the offence disclosed therein i.e., offence under Section 498-A

RPC, is non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the

3

CRM(M) No.286/2021

CrlM No.1027/2021

petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the

aforesaid charge sheet.

5)

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

of the case.

6)

So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those

pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the, are concerned, the

same are not disputed.

7)

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether

this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when the

offence alleged to have been committed by petitioners is non-

compoundable in nature. It is a settled law that the offences arising out

of matrimony relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong

is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved

their entire dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash

the criminal proceedings if it is shown that because of the compromise

arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing

conviction of the accused. In these circumstances, it would amount to

extreme injustice if despite settlement having