Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 653 (JK)

Sheikh Nazir Mehadi Mohammadi v. UT of Ladakh

2022-11-22

MOHD.AKRAM CHOWDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No. 3 have drawn the attention of this Court towards a compromise deed placed on record as Annexure-VI to the petition, which is in shape of an affidavit and whereby respondent No. 3 has declared on oath that she had entered into compromise with her husband-accused and does not want to pursue the FIR No. 09/2019 under section 498-A RPC. 2. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioners have sought quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before the court of learned Chief Justice Magistrate Kargil in case titled State Vs. Sheikh Nazir Mehdi Mohammadi & Ors. filed under section 498-A RPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has very candidly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and he has instructions from respondent no. 3, who is a victim in the case, not to oppose the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of official respondents has also not raised any serious objection to the plea raised by the petitioners and respondent no. 3, in the matter. 5. The facts giving rise to filing of the instant petition is that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 got married on 23.09.2010 in accordance with the principles of Muslim Law and out of the said wedlock two male children were born to them. But with the passage of time, the said marriage ran into rough weather, which made their life as well as the life of entire family, miserable. Consequently, the said couple decided to separate from each other and the divorce took place through a divorce-deed dated 20.09.2019, which was executed by petitioner No. 1 after due pronouncement of Talak as per the principles of Muslim Law and also after all efforts of reconciliation by the parties and their representatives. After the pronouncement of Talak, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint in the Women's' Police Station Kargil of UT of Ladakh and on the basis of this complaint case FIR No. 09/2019 was registered against the petitioners under section 498-A RPC. The petitioners, through the medium of the petition filed before this Court registered as CRM(M) No. 251/2019, challenged the criminal proceedings and seeking quashment of the said FIR. The petitioners, through the medium of the petition filed before this Court registered as CRM(M) No. 251/2019, challenged the criminal proceedings and seeking quashment of the said FIR. This Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 10.10.2019, directing that the proceedings against petitioners therein shall remain stayed. But in defiance of the said order, investigation in the said FIR No. 09/2019 continued and a criminal challan under section 498-A RPC has been produced against all the petitioners. 6. During the pendency of the impugned criminal challan, the parties have entered into compromise, after series of negotiations between them, which was executed on 14.12.2019 by the parties for settlement of the case registered against the petitioners and other allied disputes, resulting in, the respondent No. 3 agreed not to pursue the FIR No. 09/2019 any further and has filed an affidavit in this behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material placed on record and considered. 8. A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings. 9. Supreme Court in a judgment titled Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 ,while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows :- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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: (i) to secure the ends of justice. (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. 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 victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes 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 flavour 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 basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and 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 case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the parties have settled all the issues, therefore, continuance of the proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of the impugned FIR is not in the interest of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the parties have settled all the issues, therefore, continuance of the proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of the impugned FIR is not in the interest of the parties. It is also averred that so far as the criminal case is concerned, the same could not be compounded because the offence disclosed therein is non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the FIR and the investigation proceedings. 11. On perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh case (supra), it is clear that the dispute, 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 known that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused. In fact, in such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that it would amount to extreme injustice, if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. 12. The admitted position of the case is that both the parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. In such a scenario, this Court is under obligation to give its imprimatur to such a settlement. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and legal sanctity as also in the larger interests of the society, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 09/2019 filed under section 498-A RPC registered with Police Station Women Ladakh (Kargil) and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. A copy of this judgment is directed to be forwarded to the Trial Court for compliance. 14. Disposed of alongwith all connected applications.