J&K High Court Quashes FIR in Matrimonial Dispute, Cites Mutual Settlement and Says Section 528 BNSS Overrides Section 359
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, quashed FIR No. 100 of 2020 registered at Police Station Zainpora, Shopian. The case, initiated under Sections 452 and 376B of the Indian Penal Code, was quashed following a mutual settlement between the parties involved, with the court exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (repealed but applicable in this case), seeking quashment of FIR No. 100 of 2020 dated 29 July 2020 registered at Police Station Zaipora Shopian under Sections 452 and 376B IPC. The petitioner, claimed that he had been falsely implicated and that the FIR was concocted to settle personal scores.
The petitioner stated that he had entered into a marriage agreement with the complainant (respondent No. 3) on 10 December 2017, followed by a Nikah ceremony on 29 October 2018. Later, both parties approached the Court through petition OWP No. 2296/2018 seeking protection, which was granted. However, the complainant returned to her parental home, and under parental pressure, the petitioner signed a Khula Nama on 10 July 2020. Shortly after, on 29 July 2020, the FIR was registered.
The petitioner argued that the FIR stemmed from abuse of police powers and was devoid of merit. He informed the court that during the petition's pendency, both parties had settled the matter and signed a compromise deed on 13 September 2022, subsequently recorded before the Registrar Judicial of the Court on 27 September 2022.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the High Court possesses extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash FIRs even for non-compoundable offences if doing so serves the ends of justice. The court's power under Section 482, he argued, is distinct from Section 320, which provides for compounding of offences. He cited Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Anr (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr 2022 15 SCC 44 in support.
Opposing the plea, the State Counsel Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy. AG, argued that the FIR involved non-compoundable offences and allowing quashment based solely on a private settlement could cause miscarriage of justice.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani recorded that, "in the backdrop of the mutual settlement of the dispute between the petitioner/accused and the respondent No.3/complainant, this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in case the FIR in question... is quashed..."
While acknowledging the non-compoundable nature of the offences, the Court noted: "An FIR cannot be generally and in routine manner allowed to be quashed... yet exceptional ground appears to be made out... for invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code."
Quoting from Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court observed:
"Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court... to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice... The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable..."
Additionally, from Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court cited:
"Though court should be slow in quashing proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved... if application is made at initial stage... it will weigh with Court in exercising its power."
The Court further relied on precedents including Gopal Kumar B. Nar Vs. CBI (2014) 5 SCC 800, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Madan Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1969, and Jugdish Chanan Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2008 SC 1968.
Quoting Gian Singh, the Court observed: "The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding... and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end..."
The Court recorded: "The investigation process in the impugned case FIR remained stayed under the interim court orders passed w.e.f., 18.08.2020."
The Court concluded that the FIR and the proceedings arising from it served no further purpose given the private settlement and should be terminated.
The order stated: "The instant writ petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No. 100 of 2020 dated 29.07.2020, registered with Police Station, Zainpora Shopian, under Sections 452 and 376B of IPC, along with any subsequent criminal proceedings is quashed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: XXXX vs. UT of J&K
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 125/2020
Bench: Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani
[Read/Download order]
