Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of a settlement between the offender and the victim, particularly in cases involving serious crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity, or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes. The court emphasized that such settlements lack any legal sanction.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, while adjudicating a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 366 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), categorically stated: "Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same as compounding of offence. For serious offences, like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all."

Background of the Case

The case arose from a petition filed by Syed Mazloom Hussain and others, who contended that petitioner No. 3 had married respondent No. 5 out of her own free will. They submitted documents, including a Nikah Nama, in support of their claim and alleged that the police were unnecessarily harassing them despite a compromise between the petitioners and the respondent. The prosecution, however, presented a different picture, arguing that respondent No. 5 had been kidnapped by petitioner No. 3 with the assistance of his brothers. During the investigation, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she alleged that she was gang-raped at an unknown location. Consequently, additional charges under Sections 376-D, 384, and 506 IPC were incorporated against the accused.

Court's Observations and Legal Precedents

Justice Koul, while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, clarified the distinction between quashing of an offence on the ground of settlement and compounding of offences: "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. 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."

The court further highlighted the ruling in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 588, which emphasizes  that whether an FIR is quashable depends on multiple factors, including:

1. Whether the crime is against society or an individual,

2. The nature and gravity of the offence,

3. The stage of the proceedings, and

4. Whether the offence is under a special statute.

Justice Koul also made a poignant observation about crimes against women, stating: "The rape is not an offence against the person alone, but it is against society. The courts must take a victim-sensitive approach and not pronounce verdicts that could infringe upon the victim’s rights while being under the influence of various cultural or gender biases which could seriously jeopardize the credibility of the judiciary. In a country like India where religious practices are centered around deities who are women, it must recognise the strength of this gender and take all measures to show unwavering respect to uphold their mental as well as bodily integrity, rather than treating them as mere chattels of men."

Denial of Quashing Petition

The court ultimately ruled that, given the serious nature of the offences involved, the FIR and criminal proceedings did not warrant quashing. The petition was dismissed, and all interim directions were vacated. "The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash the proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offences which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. In cases of this nature, the fact that, in view of compromise entered into between parties, the chance of conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to terminate the investigation and quash FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom." The court directed that respondents are free to present the chargesheet before the competent court and that the petitioners may apply for bail, which shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: Syed Mazloom Hussain and others Vs Government Of J&K and others

Case No: CRM(M) No.297/2021

Bench: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul

[Read/Download order]