01Facts
The petitioners sought quashing of the challan arising from FIR No. 07/2023, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Rajouri, for offences under Sections 498-A, 109 and 504 IPC. The challan was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri.
¶ 1Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, whose matrimonial dispute formed the basis of the proceedings, entered into a compromise and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.
¶ 2–3The Court directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial, who recorded their statements confirming the compromise and its execution.
¶ 4The petitioners then sought quashing of the challan and consequential proceedings on that basis.
¶ 502Issues
i.Whether the High Court could quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under its inherent jurisdiction, where the parties had settled their matrimonial dispute.
¶ 8ii.Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or cause injustice despite the compromise.
¶ 11–1203Law Applied
The Court relied on the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC.
Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that power may be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; in cases with an overwhelmingly private or personal character, including matrimonial disputes, quashing may be appropriate where the parties have settled their dispute and the prospect of conviction is remote.
¶ 9–10Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, similarly directs courts to exercise the power sparingly, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the character of the dispute, and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice.
¶ 9–10Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 109Section 504Section 307
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320Section 482
04Reasoning
The Court treated the case as arising from a matrimonial dispute, rather than a serious offence with a substantial public impact.
The parties had settled their dispute, agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, and personally confirmed the compromise before the Registrar Judicial.
¶ 3–4, 12Applying Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court held that the non-compoundable character of some alleged offences did not, by itself, prevent quashing.
¶ 11–12It considered that continuing the proceedings despite the settlement would cause injustice and amount to an abuse of process.
¶ 11–1205Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the challan arising from FIR No. 07/2023, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Rajouri, together with the consequential proceedings.
¶ 13A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.
¶ 14Original Court PDF
WASEEM RAJA AND OTHERSvsUT OF J AND K TH. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, WOMEN CELL RAJOURI AND ANOTHER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
