Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 29 (JK)

Junaid Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K

2025-02-07

SINDHU SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 76/2023 dated 19.06.2023 registered at Police Station Nigeen against petitioner No. 2 for the commission of offence under section 353 IPC which was registered at the instance of petitioner No. 1 and the Challan pending before the Court of Passenger Tax, Srinagar. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is working as Store Keeper Ration Depot, Hazratbal, registered a complaint against petitioner No. 2 alleging that while performing his duty of distribution of Ration, petitioner No. 2 forcefully approached him to collect rice and obstructed, assaulted petitioner No. 1. This lead to a written complaint being filed by petitioner No. 1 and consequently, FIR No. 76/2023 dated 19.06.2023 was registered with Police Station Nigeen against petitioner No. 2 for the commission of offence under section 353 IPC and investigation in the aforesaid FIR resulted in Challan being presented on 12.08.2023 before the Court of learned CJM, Srinagar which was assigned to the court of learned Passenger Tax Court, Srinagar. 3. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably and have executed a Compromise Deed dated 23.12.2024 at Srinagar which has been annexed with this petition. As per the Compromise Deed reveals, that the petitioners have resolved the dispute amicably and they do not want to pursue this litigation. 4. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the same. Today, both the petitioners are present in person and are duly identified by their counsels. Statements of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, 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. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and to pursue quietus to the controversy and amicable settlement between the petitioners, 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. versus 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. 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 petitioner No. 1 having specifically agreed that he has no objection if FIR & Challan as stated above are quashed. 9. 9. The possibility of conviction in view of the compromise between the petitioners/parties, is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the petitioners as the petitioners 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 Challan pending before the Court of Passenger Tax, Srinagar, arising out of FIR No. 76/2023 dated 19.06.2023 registered at Police Station Nigeen against petitioner No. 2 for the commission of offence under section 353 IPC, is quashed. 11. This petition along with connected application(s), if any, stands disposed of as such.