Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after noting that the parties had reached an amicable settlement. The Court clarified that the provisions of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC, do not restrict its inherent powers to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC). It held that such jurisdiction remains intact and may be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, particularly when continuation of proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the complainant, who were married and later developed serious differences leading to separation. The dispute resulted in criminal proceedings initiated by the Women Cell Police Station, Jammu, under Sections 498-A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet, which was pending before the Court of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Electricity, Jammu.

Also Read: Investigating Agencies Barred From Summoning Advocates For Legal Advice Given To Accused; Privileged Communications Protected Under S.132–134 BSA, In-House Counsel Not Covered By Privilege: Supreme Court

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, submitting that the parties had amicably resolved their differences and decided to dissolve their marriage. It was submitted that a civil petition for dissolution of marriage had been filed before the competent court and was likely to be decreed shortly. They contended that continuation of criminal proceedings, despite mutual settlement, would serve no useful purpose and amount to unnecessary hardship.

The respondent-State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that while the matter could be dealt with according to law, unrestricted allowance of compounding in criminal cases could promote disregard for legal procedure. The Court recorded that both sides appeared in person and affirmed their settlement. The matter was examined with reference to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 359 BNSS, corresponding to Section 320 of the Code, dealing with compounding and inherent powers of the High Court.

The Court observed that “it may meet the ends of justice in case the instant petition is allowed pursuant to the mutual settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2, as the same is likely to bring to an end the long drawn matrimonial litigation between the two families.”

It further recorded that “an FIR cannot be generally and in routine manner allowed to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS… yet exceptional ground appears to be made out in the opinion of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for invoking its extraordinary powers.”

Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani stated that “the provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS… regarding quashment of FIRs and criminal proceedings for the sake of the society at large which is the real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system.” The Court clarified that the inherent powers of the High Court remain preserved to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Gopal Kumar B. Nar vs. CBI (2014) 5 SCC 800, the Court noted that “though quashment of non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC following a settlement between the parties would not amount to circumvention of Section 320, such power has to be exercised with care and caution and would depend on facts of each case.”

Also Read: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Five-Year Delay, Cites Lack of Proximate Link Between Offence and Custody

Referring to Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, it observed that “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 Court recorded that continuing with the criminal proceedings would only “prove a futile exercise, for just completing the procedure for recording an order of acquittal.”

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and impugned charge-sheet/challan bearing no. 15/2024 dated 23.05.2024 of the Police Station Women Cell, Jammu arising out of case presently pending trial before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Electricity, Jammu is quashed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. Amita Khajuria, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General; Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate

Case Title: Sidharth Mahajan and Another v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Another
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 814/2025
Bench: Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani