Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 540 (JK)

Daljit Singh v. Union Territory of J&K

2023-09-20

SINDHU SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR No. 16/2020, dated 31.08.2020 under section 498-A IPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Kathua. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, respondent No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 5 on 06.10.2017 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies and had been living together since then. The petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are residing separately from rest of the petitioners in different house. During the subsistence of marriage, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint with respondent No. 1 registered as FIR No. 16/2020 against the petitioners, under section 498-A IPC. 3. During the pendency of these proceedings, parties have decided to reach an amicably settlement and have entered into a Compromise with each other. They also have mutually decided to dissolve their marriage. 4. In terms of the said compromise, it is submitted that they have settled their differences amicably and respondent No. 2 has submitted that she has no grievance against the petitioners and, as such, does not wish to proceed with the prosecution of the petition. Both the parties are present in Court today, and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have also been recorded. In the statements, they have stated that they have voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and a Compromise Deed has been executed in this regard between them and they have no objection, in case the proceedings in FIR No. 16/2020, dated 31.08.2020 under section 498-A IPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Kathua. 5. This issue regarding quashing of proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute on the ground of settlement/compromise is to be encouraged by this Court to put an end to all disputes as held in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Yashpal Chaudhrani & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr. 2019 SCC Online Del 8179. 6. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. 2013 (0) SUPREME (SC) 247, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under: “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. 2019 SCC Online Del 8179. 6. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. 2013 (0) SUPREME (SC) 247, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under: “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.” 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466 , vide which the guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 are reproduced below: 29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 8. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 9. 8. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 9. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offences of heinous nature of mental depravity, like murder, rape, dacoity, rather it is a case of offences relating to matrimonial dispute. It is apparent that the parties have resolved and settled their disputes and no useful purpose would be served by continuation of prosecution. It is well settled that in case of offence relating to matrimonial dispute, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for securing the ends of justice, criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers of this Court. 10. Keeping in view the compromise of the parties, possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties as the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the same. It is, thus, better to put a quietus to the dispute in view of the settlement arrived between the parties. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this petition is allowed, FIR No. 16/2020, dated 31.08.2020 under section 498-A IPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Kathua, is quashed. 12. This petition along with applications, if any, stands disposed of.