SHIVANI KUMARI ALIAS SHABNAM KOUSAR AND OTHERS vs UT OF J AND K TH. POLICE STATION, KANHACHAK, JAMMU

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

S. No. 97
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU



Case:-

CRM(M) No. 143/2026

1. Shivani Kumari alias Shabnam Kouser, age 32 years









…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. M A Shah, Advocate

Vs
UT of J&K, through Police Station Kanachak, District
Jammu.
W/o Kuldeep Kumar, R/o Gura Pattan, District Jammu.

2. Krishan Lal alias Happy, age 35 years S/o Mela Ram
R/o Gurah Pattan, Tehsil Bhalwal, P.O Ranjan, District
Jammu.

3. Vishvash Kumar @ Vishal, age 28 years S/o Darshan Lal
R/o Gurah Pattan, Tehsil Bhalwal, P.O Ranjan, District
Jammu.

4. Vicky Kumar, age 44 years S/o Yash Pal, R/o Gurah
Pattan, Tehsil Bhalwal, P.O Ranjan, District Jammu.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy AG

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
Coram:



JUDGMENT
(28.10.2026)


01. Through the medium of instant petition, filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioners are
seeking to quash Police Challan/Charge-sheet No. 77/2019 titled “UT of
J&K vs Krishan Lal Alias Happy & Ors” , pending before the Court of
learned City-Judge, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 0092/2019 dated
30.06.2019, registered under Sections 451, 354, 323, 147 RPC at Police
Station Kahanachak, District Jammu, on the basis of a Compromise Deed
dated 12.01.2026 entered into between the parties, i.e., petitioner No.1
and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4.



BRIEF FACTS
02. Briefly stated t hat the petitioners are the natives of same village and once
over a certain trifle issue, arising out of a misunderstanding and
misconception, petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR bearing No. 0092/2019
dated 30.06.2019 against the petitioners 2 to 4 and two other persons at
Police Station Kanhachak, for commission of offences under Sections
451, 354, 323, 147 RPC . Upon completion of the investigation, the said
FIR culminated into Final Report/Challan No. 77/2019 titled “UT of J&K
vs Krishan Lal Alias Happy & Ors” and is presently pending before the
Court of learned City Judge, Jammu .


03. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties, with the intervention
of elders of the families from both sides, decided to settle the dispute
amicably outside the Court. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 and petitioners 2
to 4 entered into a compromise, which was reduced into writing by way of
a Compromise Deed executed between them on 12.01.2026. In terms of
the agreement arrived at between the parties, they have decided to resolve
the disputes and put an end to the litigation.
04. On 20.02.2026, petitioner No.1 and petitioners 2 to 4 were directed to
appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their
statements. Accordingly, parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial
and their statements have been recorded on 11.03.2026, which have been
placed on record along with the Compromise Deed. As per the statements
of the parties recorded before the Registrar Judicial, they have resolved
their disputes amicably and prayed for quashing the FIR-in-question as
CRM(M) No. 143/2026 2 | P a g e



also the consequent Challan/Charge-sheet pending before the Court of
City-Judge, Jammu. Petitioner No.1, who is a complainant in the
impugned FIR, has stated that she has no objection in case FIR
No.0092/2019 dated 30.06.2019, registered under Sections 451, 354, 323,
147 RPC at Police Station Kahanachak, District Jammu as well as the
consequential Challan/charge-sheet pending before the Court of City-
Judge, Jammu is quashed.
05. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the proceedings
can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no more res
integra . The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State
of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , framed guidelines for
accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding.
Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant are reproduced below:-
"29.03 Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences
alleged to have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public
Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases."

CRM(M) No. 143/2026 3 | P a g e



06. In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does
not fall within the offence of heinous nature. Keeping in view the nature
of the allegations and the fact that the parties have already settled the
matter amicably, and that petitioner No.1 has no objection to the quashing
of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
07. Therefore, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties,
there are bleak chances of conviction, rather continuation of criminal
proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties and would amount to
abuse of the process of Court, as the parties are no longer interested in
pursuing the same.
08. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and to secure the ends of justice, this petition is
allowed and Challan/Final Report No. 77/2019 titled “UT of J&K vs
Krishan Lal Alias Happy & Ors” , arising out of FIR No. 0092/2019 dated
30.06.2019, registered under Sections 451, 354, 323, 147 RPC at Police
Station Kahanachak, District Jammu, pending before the Court of learned
City Judge, Jammu is quashed.
09. Disposed of accordingly.


( MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
JAMMU

28.10.2026
Vijay


Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
Vijay Kumar
2026.10.29 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM(M) No. 143/2026 4 | P a g e