Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 134 (JK)

Chuni Lal v. Union Territory of J&K

2024-03-20

SINDHU SHARMA

body2024
JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Challan No. 273/2017 pending before the Court of Learned Munsiff, Kathua arising out of FIR No. 130/2017 dated 21.04.2017 registered at Police Station Kathua against them for the commission of offences under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 RPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act which was registered by respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute arose between the parties which lead to registration of FIR No. 130/2017 against the petitioners by respondent No. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they constituted a lawful assembly and committed house pros at about 9.30 am and thereafter started beating the complainant with fists and caused injury to her but she was rescued by one Paramjit Kumar. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR No. 130/2017 dated 21.04.2017 with Police Station Kathua against the petitioner for the commission of offences under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 RP C and Section 4/25 Arms Act RPC. 3. The complainant and the petitioners are relative as the husband of the complainant is the real brother of the accused No. 1 and the complainant is the maternal aunt of accused Nos. 2 & 3. It is submitted that with the intervention of the people of the area, the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably. They have executed a Compromise Deed dated 29.04.2024 at Kathua which has been annexed with this petition. Perusal of the Compromise Deed reveals, that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and they do not want to pursue this litigation. 4. Accordingly, the parties have approached this Court. Today, both the parties are present in person and are duly identified by their counsels. Statements of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 have been recorded. They submit that in terms of the Compromise Deed, they have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and a Compromise Deed has been executed in this regard and they have decided not to pursue the said criminal Challan. 5. Perusal of the Compromise Deed reveals that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion. 6. 5. Perusal of the Compromise Deed reveals that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and to pursue quietus to the controversy and amicable settlement between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of this petition. Similar issue was considered by 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 proceedings. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 are reproduced below:- "29.03. 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. 29.04. 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. 29.05. 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." 7. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 8. Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecution cases which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 8. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioners do not fall within the offences of heinous nature of mental depravity, like murder, rape, dacoity, as such, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that they have settled the matter and decided to live in a peace and harmony as the complainant having specifically agreed that she has no objection if Challan as stated above is quashed. 9. The possibility of conviction in view of the compromise between the parties, 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. This Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings in this case would be abuse of process of the Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this petition is allowed and Criminal Challan No. 273/2017 pending before the Court of Learned Munsiff, Kathua, arising out of FIR No. 130/2017 dated 21.04.2017 registered at Police Station Kathua, is quashed. 11. This petition along with connected application(s), if any, stands disposed of as such.