Allowed¶40

Suhail Nazir Wani and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K through SHO Police Station Ram Munshibagh Srinagar. (Home Department)

J&K HC16 Dec 2025CRM(M)/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement between parties; inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS); abuse of process of law; offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC; FIR No. 35/2017, P/S Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar; settlement statements recorded by Registrar Judicial; reliance on Gold Quest International (2014 (15) SCC 235), Gian Singh ((2012) 10 SCC 303), B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Madhukar (SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2025); High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Srinagar; decided 16.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 35/2017 (offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC) registered at Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, and of all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of. ¶40

Suhail Nazir Wani and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J and K through SHO… — Corruption | J&K HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 35/2017, registered at Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court.

¶15

Court's answer

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve a salutary purpose and to prevent criminal proceedings from degenerating into a weapon of harassment; where proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law or bring pressure upon the accused, they can be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Once the parties to the FIR have arrived at an amicable settlement, pendency of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, and exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is imperative in order to serve the interests of justice.

¶26

Key takeaways

In light of the settled legal position, and since the parties have already settled their dispute outside the Court, continuance of the proceedings before the Trial Court would be sheer abuse of the process of law; therefore the petition deserves to be allowed.ratio¶39
The petition is allowed: FIR No. 35/2017 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC, registered at Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, is quashed, as also the proceedings emanating therefrom.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.; CRM (M) No. 70/2023; decided 16.12.2025. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 35/2017, registered at Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC, arising out of a complaint by petitioner no.2 against petitioner no.1 and his father that led to a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The parties having amicably settled the dispute (statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial of the Court), the Court held that pendency of criminal proceedings despite such settlement amounts to abuse of the process of law and that exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS) is imperative; placing reliance on Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (15) SCC 235) — reproducing Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 — and on Madhukar (SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2025), the Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, and disposed of the matter.

¶1

S. No. 15 Regular Cause List

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CRM (M) No. 70/2023

¶4

Suhail Nazir Wani and Anr.

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate

¶7

¶8

UT of J&K through SHO P/S Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar

...Respondents

Through: None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

16.12.2025

¶15

Quashing of criminal proceedings in FIR no.35/2017 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC, registered in Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court, is sought for in the instant petition.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record on the file and considered the matter.

¶17

A complaint had been filed by petitioner no.2 against the petitioner no.1 and his father, which led to the filing of Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate (2^nd Addl. Munsiff) at Srinagar.

¶18

Counsel for petitioners would contend that dispute between the parties, that resulted in lodgment of FIR, has been resolved by them by amicable settlement as is evident from their statements recorded by the Registrar Judicial of this Court in terms of the order of this Court, as such, impugned FIR may be quashed because if FIR is not quashed it will cause great oppression and prejudice to petitioners.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions have placed reliance on the judgements passed in K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384 and judgement dated 13.10.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 10883 of 2023 titled Nitinsingh and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer through P/S

¶20

¶21

Chhatripura District Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

¶22

In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to state that provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provide for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court, which is noticed hereunder:

¶23

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. — Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

¶24

Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS), thus, envisages three circumstances in which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

¶25

It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve a salutary purpose and that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of the inherent powers such proceedings can be quashed.

¶26

It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the registration of FIR lodged against petitioner no.1 and his father parties have arrived at amicable settlement. In such circumstances pendency of criminal proceedings before Trial court or for that matter any other proceeding/case(s) of like nature before any other Court/Forum, amounts to abuse of process of law and in order to serve interests of justice, exercise of inherent powers under and in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is imperative.

¶27

In regard to quashing of FIR on the basis of an amicable settlement in respect of a cognizable and non-compoundable offence, law is no more res integra and stands settled by a series of judgments passed by the Apex Court including in case titled as Gold Quest International Pvt. Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 (15) SCC 235 and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder :-

¶28

¶29

“7. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, judgments in B.S. Joshi (supra) and Nikhil Merchant (supra) were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court and it has found that the view taken in aforesaid two cases by this Court is correct. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Gian Singh (supra) read as follows:

¶30

‘57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

¶31

59. B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1 and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly ?We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.

¶32

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. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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

¶33

¶34

offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 a 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 the 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 the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.’

¶35

8. In view of the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the view in the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the same would not apply where the nature of offence is very serious like rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and other similar kind of offences in which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be awarded. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in quashing the FIR after not only the complainant and the appellant settled their money dispute but also the other alleged sufferers entered into an agreement with the appellant, and as such, they too settled their claims.”

¶36

Hon’ble Apex Court further in case titled as Madhukar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another being SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2025 decided on 14.07.2025 has held that the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose where parties have compromised and it would only prolong distress for all concerned, and that the burden on the

¶37

¶38

Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.

¶39

In light of aforesaid legal position, besides the parties have already settled their dispute outside the Court, this Court thinks it appropriate to allow instant petition as continuance of proceedings before Trial Court would be sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶40

Based on the all-inclusive consideration of the facts and circumstances summed up in foregoing paragraphs, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seemingly is warranted. Hence, the instant petition is allowed . FIR No.35/2017 for the offences under Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-B RPC, registered at Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, is quashed as also the proceedings emanated therefrom.

¶41

14. Disposed of .

¶42

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE

¶43

SRINAGAR

¶44

16.12.2025 Manzoor

¶45

Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 18.12.2025 00.32

¶46

Suhail Nazir Wani and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K through SHO Police Station Ram Munshibagh Srinagar. (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhail Nazir Wani and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K through SHO Police Station Ram Munshibagh Srinagar. (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nafees Ahmad Rather and Ors. Vs Yasmeen Ashaie and Ors. (Higher Education Department)

Mtr. Fatima and Another Vs State of Jk and Others (Revenue Department) through Its Chief Secretary

Nisar Ahmad Wani Vs State of Jk and Ors. (Housing and Urban Dev.)

Ali Mohammad Sheikh and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Urban Local Bodies / Municipality)

Waseem Ahmad Shah Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Mohammad Sultan Teli Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.