Allowed

Shaheen Ahmad Dar and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Ors.

J&K HC16 Sept 2026CRM(M)/301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash FIR No. 40/2021 charged under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC as parties had amicably settled their matrimonial differences and resumed living together, deeming continued prosecution futile and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 40/2021 along with the consequential charge-sheet and all proceedings therefrom are quashed.

Shaheen Ahmad Dar and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K… — Matrimonial and Divorce | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

S. No. 66
Regular

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CRM(M) No. 301/2025 CrLM No. (712/2025)

¶4

Shaheen Ahmad Dar And Ors. …Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. Mubashir Vikar Rather, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Union Territory of J&K And Ors.

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER

¶11

16.09.2026

¶12

Heard both the counsel.

¶13

In terms of the impugned FIR No. 40/2021, the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the consequential chargesheet arising therefrom.

¶14

It appears that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial discord. They have resolved their differences and are presently residing together with a

¶15

view to preserving their matrimonial relationship and securing the welfare and betterment of their children.

¶16

The compromise arrived at between the parties on 26.05.2025 is on record. Pursuant thereto, the complainant as well as petitioner No. 1 have appeared before the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, and made statements in support of the contents of the compromise. Although the offence under Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable in terms of the Schedule, the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute and are now residing together. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and the consequential chargesheet.

¶17

Having regard to the statements made by the parties and the terms of the settlement arrived at between them, which, on the face of it, appears to have been entered into in the interest of preserving the family and securing the welfare of their children, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Rather, it would be detrimental to the interests of the parties and would result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time. Even if the proceedings are permitted to continue, notwithstanding the noncompoundable nature of the offence, the fact remains that the complainant has amicably settled the dispute with the accused. In such circumstances, continuation of the prosecution is unlikely to achieve the object for which the criminal proceedings were initiated and may ultimately prove futile.

¶18

Even otherwise, once the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial differences and have chosen to reside together,

¶19

continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would result in unnecessary wastage of judicial time. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed . FIR No. 40/2021, along with the consequential charge-sheet and all proceedings emanating therefrom, shall stand quashed .

¶20

(SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE

¶21

SRINAGAR:
16.09.2026
Akhil Dev

Shaheen Ahmad Dar and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Ahmad Dar and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases