Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 125 (JK)

Karan Singh v. Union Territory of J&K

2025-03-12

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL

body2025
JUDGMENT(ORAL) PRAYER 1. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking quashment of the proceedings in Challan/Charge-sheet bearing File No.94/2018 titled State of J&K vs Karan Singh & Ors, arising out of FIR No. 07/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, by respondent No.4, for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC, pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.4, on the following grounds: a) That the impugned charge sheet/challan is bad in the eyes of law and is abused the process of law so the same is liable to be quashed outrightly. b) That the impugned FIR on the chargesheet/challan does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners, as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed outrightly. c) That the petitioners and respondent no. 4 have already arrived on compromise in the year 2016 and since then, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 are living together at house of petitioner no. 1 and during their stay together with each two children i.e. a male child namely Ahil Singh in the year 2016 and a female child namely Mahira Singh in the year 2019. The petitioners alongwith respondent no. 4 has also reported compromised arrived between them, before respondent no.3, but investigation was not dropped and challan was presented before the Ld. Court, as such the impugned proceedings in impugned Challan are liable to be quashed. d) That the petitioners and petitioner no. 4 i.e. complainant in impugned FIR have already arrived on a compromise in the year 2016 i.e. before the filing of final charge sheet/challan before the Ld. Court below and have executed a compromise deed, as such the chances of conviction in the case are remote, as such the FIR alongwith proceedings in final charge sheet/challan are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into by the petitioners and respondent no. 4. e) That the petitioners have already appraised the Ld. Trial Court regarding the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent no.4, but as the offence u/s 498-A R.P.C. is non- compoundable, the Ld. Court below has not dropped the proceedings or discharged the petitioners in the challan. 4. e) That the petitioners have already appraised the Ld. Trial Court regarding the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent no.4, but as the offence u/s 498-A R.P.C. is non- compoundable, the Ld. Court below has not dropped the proceedings or discharged the petitioners in the challan. The charges have not yet been framed in the challan, as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. f) That just balance between fundamental rights of the citizen under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and exclusive power of the Court to take cognizance has to be struck by this Hon’ble court. Any FIR with such allegations is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S (corresponding to section 482 of Cr.P.C.) or Article 226 of Constitution of India. On this count, the petition as prayed for deserves to be allowed and proceedings in the impugned charge sheet/challan are liable to be quashed. g)That the case has been registered u/s 498-A and 109 RPC but the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR does not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. BRIEF FACTS 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.4, on 14.02.2014, lodged a FIR No. 07/2014 against the petitioners and one Chuni Lal at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC. The allegation leveled in the aforesaid FIR are that at the time of solemnization of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, several items including gold ornaments were given by the parents of respondent No.4, to the petitioners as dowry. However, after the marriage, the petitioners subjected the respondent No.4 to cruelties for demand of dowry. 3. After completion of the investigation, the I.O presented the charge-sheet/challan before the competent Court of law which is pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu, vide File No. 94/2018, titled “State of J&K Vs Karan Singh & Ors”. 4. During pendency of the challan petitioners alongwith respondent no. 3. After completion of the investigation, the I.O presented the charge-sheet/challan before the competent Court of law which is pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu, vide File No. 94/2018, titled “State of J&K Vs Karan Singh & Ors”. 4. During pendency of the challan petitioners alongwith respondent no. 4 appeared and appraised the learned trial Court about the compromise arrived at between the parties to the lis and further requested to drop the proceedings in the abovementioned case, against the petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, but as the offences are non-compoundable, so the Court below has shown its incapacity to decide the petition in terms of compromise arrived between the parties, therefore, prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements. In this regard, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of both the petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.4, the same are placed on record which read as under:- “ Statement of Karan Singh (petitioner No.1), Age: 34 years; S/o Bachan Lal, R/o Treva, Jammu on oath today i.e 11.03.2025; I deposed that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with my wife- Neelam Kumari (respondent No.4/complainant) pertaining to FIR No. 7/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered against me as well as my family members by her at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC. A compromise deed dated 15.12.2024, duly attested on 16.12.2024 by Notary Jammu, has also been executed between Neelam Kumari (respondent No.4/complainant) and me in this regard. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before Hon’ble Court to quash FIR No. 7/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC and consequent challan pending adjudication before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before Hon’ble Court to quash FIR No. 7/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC and consequent challan pending adjudication before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. Statement of Neelam Kumari (respondent No.4/ complainant), Age:35; W/o Karan Singh, D/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Kirchpur, Adlehr, Jammu on oath today i.e. 05.02.2025: I deposed that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with my husband- Karan Singh (petitioner No.1) and other petitioners i.e petitioner nos. 2 to 10 pertaining to FIR No. 7/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered by me against the petitioners at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC. A compromise deed dated 15.12.2024, duly attested on 16.12.2024 by Notary Jammu, has also been executed between me and petitioners in this regard. Further, I have no grievance against the petitioners and I do not want to pursue the above mentioned FIR filed by me against the petitioners. In view of our amicable settlement, I have no objection in case Hon’ble Court quashes the FIR No. 7/2014 dated 14.02.2014, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC and consequent challan pending adjudication before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu”. 6. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, placed on record, demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise, whereby, they have settled their differences. 7. Before proceeding to settle the petition finally on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court, in this regard, in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 ”. In relevant para 61, it is 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. 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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding”. 8. This Court is further fortified with the judgment of Apex Court titled “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 ” . It would be profitable to reproduce para 16 of the aforesaid judgment 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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.” 9. 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.” 9. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CPC (now 528 BNSS) in paras 1, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16 held as under : “ 1. The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings . The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non- compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 3. The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [ (1977) 4 SCC 551 ; and Surendra Nath Mohanty &Anr. v. State of Orissa [ AIR 1999 SC 2181 ]. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 ], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code 16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.” 10. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.” 10. The ratio of aforementioned judgments make the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now 528 of BNSS) to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice, if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. The ratios of judgments (supra) are clearly applicable to the case in hand. 11. Keeping in view the foregoing reasons coupled with legal proposition of law, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, proceedings in challan, arising out of FIR No.07/2014 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC of Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending before the Court of learned Electricity Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu to the extent of petitioner No. 1 and his family members, are hereby quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 12. Copy of this order be sent to Court below for compliance.