Sr. No. 07
Final Hearing
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 48/2008
Davinderjeet Singh and others
…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K and another
…..Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Shazia Asaf, Advocate vice
Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG for R-1
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for R-2
CORAM: RS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE M
ORDER
29.02.2024
01. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of
FIR No. 09/2005 under Section 498-A RPC registered with the Women
Cell Police Station, Jammu.
02. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
06.11.2002 according to Sikh rites and customs and had been living
together since then. A female child named Ritika was born to the parties
on 12.10.2003.
03. The Respondent No. 2 filed complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate (CJM), Jammu. Upon receipt of this complaint, the learned
CJM, Jammu referred the matter to respondent No. 1 for investigation and
a formal FIR was registered against the petitioners, i.e., FIR No. 09/2005.
After the completion of the investigation, respondent No. 1 filed charge-
sheet (Challan) under Section 498-A RPC before the Court of the 2nd
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
Jammu
16.07.2024 11:44
2 5
CRMC No. 48/2008 Page of
nd
Additional Munsiff, Jammu. The Court of learned 2 Additional Munsiff,
Jammu, after hearing the counsel for the parties on the charge and after
perusing the documents submitted by the Police, framed charges on
28.02.2008 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A RPC. This order, dated 28.02.2008, was assailed by the
petitioners in the present petition.
04. During the pendency of proceedings of this petition, 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 and a compromise deed between them is placed on record.
05. 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 against them. Both the parties are present in Court today, and
they are duly identified by their respective counsels. The statement of
respondent No. 2 has been recorded. In her statement, she has stated that
she has amicably settled all the disputes and issues with the petitioners
outside the Court and a Compromise Deed has also been executed by
them in this regard. She further submitted that she has no objection, in
case, the proceedings in FIR No.16/2020 under section 498-A IPC
registered with Police Station Women Cell, Jammu are quashed.
06. The 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.
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
Jammu
16.07.2024 11:44
3 5
CRMC No. 48/2008 Page of
Joshi & ors. vs. State of Haryana & anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 and
Yashpal Chaudhrani & ors. State (Govt. of NcT Delhi) & anr. 2019
SCC Online Del 8179.
07. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi &
anr., 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 247
, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para
12 as under:
In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine
“12.
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 subseque
nt criminal proceedings.”
08. The Narinder Singh & ors. versus
Hon’ble Apex Court in
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:-
29.03 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.
29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
Jammu
16.07.2024 11:44
4 5
CRMC No. 48/2008 Page 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.
09. In view of the law as laid down in the aforementioned judgments,
it is apparent that this power is not to be exercised in prosecutions which
involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. but can be exercised in matrimonial disputes, civil or
commercial matters.
10. In the present case, 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. Further, 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.
11. Keeping in view the compromise entered between the parties,
possibility of conviction is bleak and further continuation of criminal
proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties as the parties are no
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
Jammu
16.07.2024 11:44
5 5
CRMC No. 48/2008 Page of
longer interested in pursuing the same. It is, thus, better to put a quietus to
the dispute in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
12. In view of the aforesaid position and in order to secure the ends
of justice, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 09/2005 under section 498-A
RPC and order dated 28.02.2008 are quashed.
13. Disposed of accordingly.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Jammu:
29.02.2024
Michal Sharma/PS
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
Jammu
16.07.2024 11:44