PAWAN KUMAR vs UT OF J AND K TH. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, BISHNAH, JAMMU AND ANOTHER

1


HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU



CRM(M) No. 66/2026

Pronounced on: 31.10.2026
Uploaded on : 31 .10.2026


Pawan Kumar ..... Petitioner (s)

Through :- Mr. Pawan Bandral Advocate

V/s


UT of J&K and another .....Respondent(s)

Through :- None


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


JUDGMENT

1 The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment
of the challan/charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 160/2011 dated 11.11.2011 for
offences under Sections 451, 354 & 323 RPC, registered with Police Station,
Bishnah. The challan is stated to be pending disposal before the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bishnah.
2 Briefly stated, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are that
on 11.11.2011, respondent No.2/complainant submitted a written application in
Urdu before the Police Station, alleging therein that she had come to her parental
house at Village Chorki, Bishnah and, while she was all alone at home, at about
6:30 p.m., the petitioner/accused entered her parental house and caught hold of her
by her chest and attempted to outrage her modesty. She raised an alarm and, in the
meantime, some persons arrived at the spot, whereupon the petitioner/accused fled
away from the scene. It was further alleged that the petitioner/accused also tore the

2

wearing clothes of respondent No.2/complainant and assaulted her. On the basis of
the aforesaid complaint, the Police Station, Bishnah registered the impugned FIR
against the petitioner/accused.
3. It seems that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner
and respondent No.2, a copy whereof is annexed with the petition.As per the
compromise deed, which has been executed on 14.01.2026, the parties have settled
their disputes amicably as they want to live peacefully.
4 In order to verify the execution of the compromise arrived at between
the parties, this Court vide order dated 24.04.2026 directed the parties to appear
before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements. Pursuant
to the said direction, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of both the
parties and the same are placed on record. In their statements, both the parties have
admitted the contents of the compromise deed as well as its execution.
5 Petitioner has, thus, sought quashment of the impugned challan and
the consequent proceedings on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record
of the case.
8 In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question
arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly
when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are
non-compoundable in nature.
9 The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab &
another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , while considering this aspect, has
observed as under:

3

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus:
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. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;
(i) to secure the ends of justice or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power
to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
crime. 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 serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases,
High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.."

10 Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case titled Narinder Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has laid down

4

guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings. The guidelines are reproduced as
under:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between c/w the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with
caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,
the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not 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.

(IV) 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.

(V) 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

5

great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against
the individual alone. However, the High Court c/w would not
rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section
307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.
In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not,
timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise,
those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet
to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court
can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but
after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the
High Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would

6

be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to
come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307
IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter
is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a c/w ground to
accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is
proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question
of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

11 From a perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it
is clear that where the offender and the victim have settled their disputes and the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the continuation of criminal
proceedings where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, the High
Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings if it is known
that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote
possibility of securing conviction of the accused. In fact, in such cases, the
Supreme Court has clearly observed that it would amount to extreme injustice if
despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings
are allowed to continue.
12 Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties to
the dispute, i.e. the complainant-respondent No.2 herein and the petitioner have
entered into a compromise whereby respondent No.2 has decided not to pursue
prosecution in the impugned FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, once the rival
groups have arrived at a settlement as regards the basis of the dispute, allowing the
prosecution to continue merely because some of the offences alleged against the
accused are non-compoundable in nature would amount to great injustice to both
the parties. In fact, it will amount to frittering away the fruits of compromise that
has been arrived at between the parties, who want to live peacefully. The

7

continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in these circumstances,
will be nothing, but an abuse of process of law.
1 3 Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed.
Accordingly , the challan emanating from FIR No.160/2011 dated 11.11.2011, for
offences under Sections 451, 354 & 323 RPC, registered with Police Station,
Bishnah, and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed .
14 A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information
and compliance.

(SANJAY DHAR)
Jammu JUDGE
31.10.2026.

Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No










Sanjeev Kumar
2026.10.31 17:10
I am the author of this
document