Deepak Sharma & Ors vs UT Of J&K & Ors

M A Chowdhary, J

Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is being invoked, by the petitioners for quashment of challan titled “State of J&K vs Deepak Sharma & Ors” pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Excise Mobile Magistrate) Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/109 RPC (since repealed penal law of J&K).

The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIR had been got registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioners and consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of the instant petition. In view of the compromise, so arrived at between the parties, the petitioners, as also the respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 01.05.2023 were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the deed of compromise. Statements of respondent/complainant and accused petitioners have been recorded on 01.05.2023, wherein they have stated that petitioner No.1 has amicably resolved all the disputes and issues with his wife Ashish Sharma, who is complainant/respondent No.2 in this case.

Petitioners and respondents have reached the compromise, which was recorded on 16th February, 2023 as it was decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. They further prayed that the challan titled “State of J&K vs Deepak Sharma & Ors” pending before the Court of learned Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/109 RPC be quashed, in view of the compromise reached between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2/complainant, namely, Ashish Sharma stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners/accused in the case and she does not wish to prosecute her case against them any further and submitted that she has no objection in case challan titled “State of J&K vs Deepak Sharma & Ors” pending before the Court of learned Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/109 RPC as well as the impugned FIR is quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:

a) That the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.11.2013 at Udhampur in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies and their relations became strained after few days of the marriage; they started living separately and respondent No.2 lodged an FIR No. 22/2015 dated 09.05.2015 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jammu against the petitioners.

b) That, the Police Station Women Cell, Jammu after investigating the above said FIR, presented challan under section 498-A/109 RPC before the Court of learned CJM, Jammu and the same was transferred to the Court of learned Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu which is still pending before the said Court.

c) That petitioner No.1 also filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No.2 and the same is pending adjudication before the Additional Family Court Jammu, for the last more than seven years. The respondent No.2 filed an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (2nd Additional Munsiff) Jammu.

d) That during the pendency of the above said cases, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 entered into a compromise whereby both of them have decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a joint petition in terms of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly they filed the above said petition before the Additional Family Court, Jammu. It was agreed between the parties that petitioner No.1 shall pay a total alimony of Rs.16.00 lac and out of which the petitioner No.1 has already paid Rs. 2.00 lacs to respondent No.2, Rs.14,00 lacs stands already deposited before, the Additional Family Court Jammu and the petitioner No.1 shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.14.00 lacs to respondent No.2 before the passing of the divorce decree and before quashment of the impugned challan, the same has been deposited by petitioner No.1 in the Family Court, Jammu; that the respondent No.2 shall make a statement for quashment of the above said challan before this Court only after the receipt of remaining Rs. 14.00 lacs. The parties have also executed a compromise deed.

e) That it was also agreed between the parties that after the receipt/deposit of the whole alimony amount, the respondent No.2 shall make the statement before any court required for the quashment of the impugned challan pending before the Court of learned Excise Mobile Magistrate and also withdraw the case filed under Domestic Violence Act from the Court of learned 2nd Addl.Munsiff, Jammu. The petitioner No.1 shall also withdraw his case filed under section 13 of H.M.Act after the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the agreement.

A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, are non-compoundable in nature.

In a case titled, “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303”, while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and 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 or 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”.

The ratio of judgment of Gian Singh’s case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners herein being remote and bleak, the continuation of criminal case rather would put the petitioners to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise having been arrived at with the respondent No. 2 and further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question, would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the challan qua the petitioners titled “State of J&K vs Deepak Sharma & Ors” pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Excise Mobile Magistrate) Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/109 RPC, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is hereby ordered to be quashed.

Petition along with pending application(s), is thus disposed of, accordingly

Copy of this order be sent to the Court below for compliance.