Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 19 (JK)

Nazir Ahmad Ganie v. Station House Officer

2023-02-02

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. Inherent jurisdiction under and in terms of provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of FIR Nos. 32/2019, dated 20.06.2019, 62/2019, dated 21.11.2019, 80/2021, dated 11.11.2021 & 81/2021, dated 11.11.2021, registered with Police Station Manzgam, Kulgam & also the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class D.H. Pora, Kulgam. 2. The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, which had resulted in registration of the impugned FIRs at the instance of petitioners 1 to 10 and cross FIRs at the instance of petitioners 11 to 17 and, consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of the instant petition. 3. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the petitioners 1 to 10 and petitioners 11 to 17, all the petitioners in terms of order dated 27.09.2022, were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements in support of the deed of compromise. The statements of all the petitioners have been recorded on 10.10.2022, by the Registrar Judicial. The same are extracted and reproduced hereunder: “Statement of Nazir Ahmad Ganie (Petitioner No. 1); Aged-64 years S/o Ghulam Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Mohammad Amin Ganie (Petitioner No. 2); Aged-55 years S/o Ghulam Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Abdul Hamid Ganie (Petitioner No. 3); Aged-58 years S/o Ghulam Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Bashir Ahmad Ganie (Petitioner No. 4); Aged-50 years S/o Ghulam Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Firdous Ahmad Ganie (Petitioner No. 5); Aged-32 years S/o Nazir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Mst. Hafiza (Petitioner No. 6); Aged-60 years W/o Nazir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. Hafiza (Petitioner No. 6); Aged-60 years W/o Nazir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Rafia Jan (Petitioner No. 7); Aged-22 years D/o Nazir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Ulfat (Petitioner No. 8); Aged-25 years D/o Nazir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Mubeena (Petitioner No. 9); Aged-26 years W/o Mudasir Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Tauseefa (Petitioner No. 10); Aged-28 years W/o Firdous Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 11 to 17 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 11 to 17 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 11 to 17.” “Statement of Manzoor Ahmad Ganai (Petitioner No. 11); Aged-42 years S/o Ghulam Hassan Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” “Statement of Mst. Zahida (Petitioner No. 12); Aged-38 years W/o Manzoor Ahmad Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” “Statement of Ghulam Hassan Ganie (Petitioner No. 13); Aged-70 years S/o Lassi Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10, of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” “Statement of Mohammad Iqbal Ganie (Petitioner No. 14); Aged-37 years S/o Ghulam Hassan Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that he has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” “Statement of Mst. Laila (Petitioner No. 16); Aged-28 years D/o Ghulam Hassan Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” “Statement of Mst. Daizy Jan (Petitioner No. 17); Aged-25 years D/o Ghulam Hassan Ganie R/o Durham Tehsil D.H. Pora, Kulgam, on oath on 10.10.2022: Stated that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners 1 to 10 of above titled petition, amicably and the compromise has been reduced into writing and executed on 18.07.2022. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The compromise has been taken on record and made part of the file. He has now no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 10 and seeks disposal of the above titled matter in light of the compromise entered upon by him and petitioners 1 to 10.” Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Before proceeding to settle the petition finally on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners 1 to 10, and petitioners 11 to 17, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. 5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (10) SCC 303 , at paragraph 61 it has been held 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 the 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. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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, 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 of 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.” And Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2017 (9) SCC 641 , at paragraph 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. 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. 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. (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 though 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. 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. 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. 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. & 16.9. Above Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court and having regard to the issues involved in the petition as well as the compromise (supra), it is manifest that the FIRs in question have been registered at the instance of the petitioners 1 to 10 and counter FIRs by petitioners 11 to 17 and the same relate to a dispute predominantly having a civil flavour being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court by the parties. 7. 7. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case(s) would rather put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise that they have entered into and, as such, further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIRs in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and, in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position, it would be appropriate and in the interests of justice to put an end to the proceedings while quashing the FIRs in question. Therefore, FIR No. 32/2019 dated 20.06.2019, for the offences under sections 447, 323, 354, 34 RPC; FIR No. 62/2019 dated 21.11.2019, for the offences under sections 341, 336, 427, 506, IPC; FIR No. 80/2021 for the offences under sections 354, 323, 147, IPC and FIR No. 81/2021 for the offences under sections 147, 354, 435, 323, 506, IPC, registered with Police Station, Manzgam, Kulgam, as also proceedings initiated thereupon shall stand quashed. 9. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly alongwith all connected Crl. Ms.