Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 485 (JK)

Mohd. Saleem v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-09-17

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of charge sheet No. 140/2020 dated 20.06.2020 pending trial before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu arising out of FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort for offences under Section 498(A), 323 I.P.C. 2. The background facts those stem out from the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 came to be solemnized on 12.12.2016 in accordance with the Muslim rites and rituals, however, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 became strained, resulting into registration of an FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. A complaint is also stated to have been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu followed by the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Special Magistrate Passenger Tax and Electricity, Srinagar which came to be transferred subsequentially to the Court of Sub-Registrar, Jammu. 3. It is being stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid cases inter se the petitioner and respondent No. 2, a compromise came to be arrived at and reduced into writing on 12.07.2021 between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 settling their disputes and differences besides dissolving their marriage and further resolving that the cases pending before the Courts of Law would be got settled accordingly. 4. It is being stated that for carrying out the terms and conditions of the compromise, the petitioner with the consent of respondent No. 2 instituted the instant petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 130/2020 pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. The petitioner, thus, prays for quashment of the said proceedings in the instant petition. 5. Upon coming of the petition for consideration on 31.08.2021, this Court directed for recording the statements of the parties before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. The statements accordingly have been recorded on 02.09.2021 and are part of the record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 5. Upon coming of the petition for consideration on 31.08.2021, this Court directed for recording the statements of the parties before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. The statements accordingly have been recorded on 02.09.2021 and are part of the record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to extract and reproduce the statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 recorded in terms of order dated 31.08.2021 in support of comprise here under:- “Statement of Mohd. Saleem [petitioner No. 1 in CRM(M) No. 396/2021 & CRM(M) No. 397/2021]; Age: 28 years; S/o Fateh Ali, R/o Kunfar, Chanderkote, Tehsil & District Ramban on oath today i.e. 02.09.2021: Stated that I and petitioner No. 1 namely Mohd. Saleem solemnized marriage in accordance with Muslim rites on 12.12.2016 at Bemina Srinagar. In view of non-compatibility and temperamental difference, our relationship, became strained. Consequently, I filed FIRs and initiated Criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1 before different courts at Jammu. During the pendency of litigations, I entered into compromise, vide compromise deed dated 12.07.2021, with petitioner no. 1. In terms of said compromise deed, I have also dissolved my marriage with petitioner No. 1 by executing mutual consent divorce deed (Mubarat Nama) on 12.07.2021. I have already received an amount of Rs. Seven Lacs from petitioner no. 1 in terms of the compromise deed and he has paid remaining amount of Rs. Six lacs through online transaction to me today. I admit the aforementioned compromise deed as well as my signature on the compromise deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed and a mutual consent divorce deed, I have no objection in case Hon'ble Court quash criminal proceedings initiated u/s 498-A/323 I.P.C. in case titled “State Vs. Mohd. Saleem” arising out of FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 having chargesheet no. 40/2020 dated 20.06.2020 as filed by me and now pending before Court of Learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu [impugned in CRM(M) No. 396/2021] and FIR No. 47/2021 dated 10.02.2021 registered with Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu [impugned in CRM(M) No. 397/2021]. Statement of Mahira Saleem [respondent no. 2 in CRM(M) No. 396/2021 & CRM(M) No. 397/2021]; Age : 37 years; D/o Late Ghulam Mohd. Statement of Mahira Saleem [respondent no. 2 in CRM(M) No. 396/2021 & CRM(M) No. 397/2021]; Age : 37 years; D/o Late Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, R/o Bemina, Srinagar A/P Lane No. 4, Vidhata Nagar, Bathindi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 02.09.2021: Stated that I and respondent No. 2 namely Mahira Saleem solemnized marriage in accordance with Muslim rites on 12.12.2016 at Bemina Srinagar. In view of non-compatibility and temperamental difference, our relationship, became strained. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed FIRs and initiated Criminal proceedings against me before different courts at Jammu. During the pendency of litigations, I entered into compromise, vide compromise deed dated 12.07.2021, with respondent No. 2. In terms of said compromise deed we have settled all our disputes. Apart from compromise deed, I have also dissolved my marriage with respondent No. 2 by executing mutual consent divorce deed (Mubarat Nama) on 12.07.2021. I have already paid on amount of Rs. Seven Lacs to the respondent No. 2 in terms of the compromise deed and I pay the remaining amount of Rs. Six Lacs today through online transaction to the respondent No. 2. I admit the contents of the aforementioned compromise deed as well as my signature on the compromise deed. I view of aforesaid compromise deed and mutual consent divorce deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash Criminal proceedings initiated u/s 498-A/323 IPC in case titled “State V/s Mohd. Saleem” arising out of FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 having chargesheet No. 40/2020 dated 20.06.2020 as filed by respondent No. 2 and now pending before Court of Learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu [impugned in CRM(M) No. 396/2021] and FIR No. 47/2021 dated 10.02.2021 registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu [impugned in CRM(M) No. 397/2021].” 7. The power of High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has been dealt with and detailed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 . 8. In Gian Singh's supra case at para 61, it has been noticed as under:- “61. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 . 8. In Gian Singh's supra case at para 61, it has been noticed as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statues like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. I this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal question(s) is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In “Parbatbhai Aahir's” supra case at Para 16, it has been noticed as under:- “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions: 16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable; 16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; 16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; 16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed through the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; 16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; 16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; 16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; 16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid propositions and principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), manifestly, the FIR No. 130/2020 came to be registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 and a consequent chargesheet filed thereof, admittedly, arouse out of matrimonial dispute being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably and mutually settled and resolved in terms of the compromise placed on record with the instant petition as Annexure-II dated 12.07.2021. The compromise reads as under:- “6. The compromise reads as under:- “6. That the party of the 1st part and 2nd party have settled a Lump sum amount of Rupees 13 Lakhs to be paid by the 1st party to the 2nd party and sum of Rupees 1 lakh 55 thousands as already paid/pending arrears of maintenance both in DVA a petition u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. till date, total amount of Rupees 14 lakh 55 thousands, in favour of party of the 2nd part and transactions details with regard to maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,55,000/- are as under:- i. Rs. 24,000/- already paid before the court of Ld. Sub- Registrar, Jammu. ii. Rs. 18,000/- paid before the court of Ld. PT&MM, Court, Srinagar. iii. Rs. 20000/- paid vide transaction ID No. 035621800530 and 035621804494 dated 21.12.2020. iv. Rs. 50000/- paid vide transaction ID No. 11581393461 dated 07.06.2021. v. Rs. 40000/- paid vide transaction ID No. 117216344609 dated 21.06.2021. Total Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty five thousand only). 7. That it has been agreed by both the parties that at present the 1st party is paying Rs. 7,00,000/- of the agreed amount out of Rs. 13,00,000/- vide I.D. No. 25623323 amounting to Rs. 3.00 lakhs and I.D. No. 25623243 amounting to Rs. 4.00 lakhs and of the remaining amount Rs. 6,00,000/- the party No. 1 has given post paid cheques bearing No. 623861 to be withdrawn after appearing and file no objection before the Hon'ble High Court. The party No. 1 shall file the proceedings for quashment of FIR No. 130/2020 dated 16.05.2020 U/s 498-A and 323 IPC P/S Bahu Fort, Jammu and FIR No. 47/2021 dated 10.02.2021 U/s 368 and 376-B and IPC at P/S Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, before the Hon'ble High Court at Jammu within one week and the party No. 2 will appear in both the petitions before the Hon'ble High Court. 8. That both the parties have agreed that they have nothing to be exchanged their belongings. It has been further mutually agreed by the parties that they will not claim any financial credit against each other in future after the execution of compromise Deed and final payment as stated hereinabove and further will not file any proceedings before any competent court of law anywhere in the U.T. of J&K/India against each other on the basis of being husband and wife. 9. 9. That after the execution of this compromise deed both the parties are freed to solemnize their marriage as per their choice after the dissolution of this marriage and none of the party will interfere in the private life of each other and also will have no objection to the remarriage of either party. 10. That it has further been agreed by the parties that both the parties are free to solemnize their marriage as per their choice after the dissolution of this marriage and none of the party will interfere in the private life of each other and also will have no objection to the remarriage of either party. 11. That it has further been agreed by the parties that both of them will be at liberty to live their independent separate life according to their sweet will and choice without any obstruction or resistance from each other. 12. That the parties undertakes that in future they will have no relation with each other and both the parties undertakes that they will not interfere with each other's personal life.” 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid amicable settlement (supra) between the parties the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioner herein being remote and bleak, the continuation of criminal case would put the accused/petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and would result in extreme injustice to him, despite full and complete settlement and compromise with respondent No. 2. The continuation of proceeding arising out of FIR/chargesheet in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in view of settlement and compromise arrived at between the respondent No. 2 and the accused/petitioner, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings by quashing the FIR in question and consequently, criminal proceedings pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. Accordingly, the same are quashed. Disposed of along with all connected CrlM(s).