Allowed

Rattan Singh and Ors. v. SHO Police Station Tral (Home Department)

J&K HC9 Jul 2021CRM(M)/201/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash two mutually registered FIRs arising from a civil dispute. The High Court held that since the parties had amicably settled their differences and the criminal proceedings were contrary to the ends of justice, it exercised its inherent power to quash the FIRs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 37 of 2016 and FIR No. 38 of 2016 and proceedings thereon before the Judicial Magistrate, Tral, are quashed.

Rattan Singh and Ors. Vs SHO Police Station Tral (Home Department) — Bail and Remand | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

S.No. 103 Suppl. 1 List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CRM(M) 201/2021 CrlM(775/2021)

¶4

RATTAN SINGH AND ORS.

¶5

…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Malik Mushtaq, Adv.

¶7

V/s

¶8

SHO POLICE STATION TRAL

¶9

…Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Mir Suhail, AAG.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Oral

¶14

1. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding between the petitioners inter se and on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner No.1, an FIR No. 37 of 2016 under Sections 341, 354, 323 and 295-A RPC came to be registered against petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 in Police Station, Tral. By way of counterblast, petitioner No. 2 also filed a complaint against petitioners 1 to 3 and consequent thereupon FIR No. 38 of 2016 under Sections 341, 323 and 506 RPC was registered in the same police station. It is submitted that registration of FIR and the counter FIR was as a result of the civil dispute pending between the petitioners inter se . It is further submitted that the parties, who have lodged FIRs against each other, have now entered into compromise and have decided not to pursue these FIRs. The petitioners have jointly filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashment of the impugned

¶15

P a g e | 2

¶16

FIRs aforementioned. The petitioners have also placed on record the written compromise arrived at and executed by the petitioners.

¶17

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

3. It seems that the registration of FIRs owe their origin to a civil dispute between the parties, for resolution of which the parties had been litigating before different forums. It is, as is claimed, with the intervention of respected persons of the locality, the petitioners entered into a compromise and amicably settled all issues between them and, accordingly, executed compromise deed on 27.10.2020. Pursuant to this settlement, the petition OWP No. 1812/2018 has been finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2021. It is, thus, the prayer of the petitioners, made jointly through the medium of this petition, that the dispute and differences between them having been amicably settled, the FIRs registered by them against each other, may kindly be quashed so that the parties can live happily, peacefully and without carrying the burden of litigation.

¶19

4. In the cases of like nature, where the criminal proceedings have emanated from a dispute which is civil in nature and the parties amicably settle such dispute, allowing the criminal prosecution to go on, would be abuse of process of law. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012)10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-61 held thus:-

¶20

“61.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

¶21

P a g e | 3

¶22

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 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 predominatingly 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

¶23

P a g e | 4

¶24

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.”

¶25

5. It is, thus, trite that the power vested in this Court by Section 482 Cr.PC is distinct from the power which lies in the court to compound the offence under Section 320 Cr.PC. No-doubt the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, may quash criminal proceedings even in a case which is non-compoundable where the parties have amicably settled the issues between themselves. However, this power has to be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any court. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity etc.

¶26

P a g e | 5

¶27

6. Viewed thus, I am satisfied that the parties have amicably settled the civil dispute between themselves and that the FIR and the counter FIR impugned in this petition are the outcome of discord between the parties due to the civil dispute. I do not find any impediment in permitting the prayer of the petitioners and to quash both the FIRs and the proceedings taken thereon before the Judicial Magistrate, Tral by exercise of inherent power conferred by Section 482 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the settlement arrived at between the parties is accepted and both the FIRs i.e. FIR No. 37 of 2016 and FIR No. 38 of 2016, which are pending trial before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Tral, are quashed.

7. Disposed of.

(SANJEEV KUMAR)

JUDGE

Srinagar 09.07.2021 Muzammil. Q

¶32

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶33

MUZAMIL QADIR 2021.07.12 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rattan Singh and Ors. v. SHO Police Station Tral (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rattan Singh and Ors. v. SHO Police Station Tral (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rashid Bhat Vs State through SHO Police Station Lalpora, Kupwara

Union Territory of J and K through Principal Secretary, Home Department and Ors. Vs Jehangir Ahmad Ganie Alias Jana Logi through His Cousin Nazir Ahmad Mir

Nazir Ahmad Mir and Anr. Vs State of J Nd K and Ors. (Home Department)

Manjeet Singh Vs Sonia

Javid Ahmad Reshi and Anr. Vs Government through Police Station Devsar (Home Department)

Rehana Qasim Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Lal Bazar (Home Department)