J&K HC Quashes 2011 Case Alleging House Trespass And Attempt To Outrage Woman’s Modesty After Complainant Settles With Accused

FIR No. 160/2011 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), on the complainant’s allegation that he entered her parental home, attempted to outrage her modesty, tore her clothes and assaulted her.

The resulting challan was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bishnah.

The petitioner and complainant later executed a compromise, and both confirmed its contents and execution in statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial.

The petitioner sought quashing of the challan and related proceedings on that basis.

The High Court relied on the inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, distinguishing that power from a criminal court’s statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court may quash non-compoundable proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and whether the dispute is essentially private or personal.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, further directs the court to consider, among other factors, the nature of the offence, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court accepted that the parties had entered into a compromise and that the complainant did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

Applying Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, it concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the proceedings despite the settlement would cause injustice and amount to an abuse of process.

The Court therefore considered quashing appropriate notwithstanding that some alleged offences were non-compoundable.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.