KAMALJEET KOUR vs U T OF J AND K TH POLICE STATION R S PURA JAMMU AND ANOTHER

HIHIGH COUHIGHGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND
LADAKH
AT JAMMU



CRM(M) No.19/2023

Pronounced on: 08.09.2026
Uploaded on:14.09.2026

Kamaljeet Kour ..... Petitioner (s)

Through :- Mr. Roop Lal Advocate.

V/s

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

Through :- Mr.P.D.Singh Dy. AG for R-1.


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



JUDGMENT
1 Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment
of FIR No. 0170/2021 dated 19.08.2021, registered at Police Station R.S. Pura,
Jammu, for offences under Sections 452, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.
2 The case set up by the petitioner is that the marriage between her
son, namely, Balwinder Singh, and respondent No. 2 was solemnized in the
year 2014 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at village Balah, Tehsil
Suchetgarh, District Jammu. It is contended that, on account of certain personal
differences and disputes having arisen between Balwinder Singh and
respondent No. 2, who are husband and wife, respondent No. 2 left the
matrimonial home and started living separately. Thereafter, she lodged the
impugned FIR against the petitioner and one Gurdeep Singh, with a view to
wreak vengeance upon them.

2


3 A perusal of the record reveals that, after registration of the
impugned FIR, respondent No. 2, in the month of November, 2021, also
initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, against her husband, Balwinder Singh, and the petitioner herein.
The said proceedings are stated to be pending adjudication before the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R.S. Pura, wherein the learned Magistrate has
directed the husband of respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per
month to her.
4 It seems that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the
parties have amicably resolved their disputes. In this regard, the petitioner has
filed an application bearing CrlM No. 1372/2026, stating therein that
respondent No. 2 and her husband have amicably settled their matrimonial
dispute and have agreed to seek dissolution of their marriage by mutual
consent. It is further stated that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR.In support
of the said settlement, an affidavit dated 10.07.2026, duly attested by the
learned Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, has been placed on record,
wherein respondent No. 2 has undertaken not to pursue the impugned FIR.
5 In order to ascertain the genuineness and voluntariness of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated
17.03.2025, directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this
Court for recording of their statements. Pursuant to the said direction, the
Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties, copies whereof
have been placed on record. From a perusal of the said statements, it emerges
that the parties have amicably resolved all the disputes and issues between
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

3


them and that respondent No. 2 has no objection to quashment of the impugned
FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
6 The petitioner has, thus, sought quashment of the impugned FIR
and the consequent proceedings on the basis of the compromise arrived at
between the parties.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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 and another are non-compoundable in nature. 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:
“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
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

4


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.."
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

5


9 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
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 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.
(I) 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
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

6


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.
(II) 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.
(III) 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.
(IV) 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 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
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

7


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.
(IV) 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 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
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
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

8


recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question
of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
10 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.
11 Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties
to the dispute i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into a
compromise. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner and co-accused
happen to be the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2. Once respondent No. 2
has settled the matrimonial dispute with her husband, no useful purpose would
be served if the criminal prosecution against the parents-in-law is allowed to
proceed further . Merely because the offences alleged in the FIR are
non-compoundable, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would
amount to grave injustice to the petitioner and, in fact, it will amount
to frittering away of the fruits of compromise that has been arrived at between
the petitioner and respondent No.2. The continuance of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of
process of law.
CRM(M) NO. 19/2023

9


12 Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is
allowed. Accordingly , FIR No. 0170/2021 dated 19.08.2021, registered with
Police Station, R.S. Pura, Jammu, for offences under Sections 452, 498-A, 323,
504, 506 and 34 IPC, and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed .
13 A copy of this order be sent to the Police Station concerned for
information and compliance.

(SANJAY DHAR)
Jammu JUDGE
10 .09.2026.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No










CRM(M) NO. 19/2023