Pawan Gambhir vs State of J&K

M A Chowdhary, J

Petitioner, through the medium of this petition under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC (akin to section 482 CrPC and 528 of BNSS), seeks quashment of FIR No.46/2016, registered against him at Police Station City, Jammu for the commission of offences under sections 341, 323 and 506 RPC, on 09.06.2016.

Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed objections/status report controverting the assertions made in the petition by the petitioner and seeks dismissal of the same. It is contended in the objections that the petitioners have failed to make a case under section 561-A CrPC and the inherent powers under section 561-A may be exercised to secure the ends of justice rarely and sparingly in exceptional cases; that the petitioners may lead their evidences before  the  trial  court  and  no  good  ground  is  made  out  to  warrant  the interference of this Court under section 561-A CrPC; that this petition raises disputed questions of facts, therefore, the petitioner may lead his evidence before the court below. Lastly, it is prayed that this petition may be dismissed.

During the pendency of the petition on hand, the petitioner and his spouse who was stated to be victim in the case, reconciled, resolved their differences amicably and filed a joint petition being case No.84/2025 (File No. Petition for Mutual Divorce/2221/2025) before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu, and the said petition has been disposed of in terms of judgment dated 23.08.2025, whereby their marriage has been dissolved with their mutual consent, in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as well as, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the joint petition. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment dated 23.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, Jammu, as under:-

“9. Hence, the prayer as made by the petitioners, is hereby accepted  and  accordingly  the  marriage  of  the  petitioners solemnized on 29.10.2012 at Jammu in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals at Jammu is hereby dissolved with mutual consent of the petitioners in terms of the provisions contained under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on the terms and conditions which have already been mentioned in the instant petition as well as in the statements of the petitioners  in  the  affidavits  filed  before  the  court  in  the present petition. The petitioner no.2 is entitled to get released an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- from this court which has been deposited by the petitioner no.1 on account of permanent alimony. Out of the said amount of Rs. 8,50,000/-, FDR for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be made in the name of the minor Naira, till she attains the age of majority, however, petitioner No.2 being the sole nominee and legal guardian shall be competent to withdraw interest accrued on the fixed deposit for welfare of the minor child. The petitioner no.2 namely Deepika Gambhir being the mother shall be guardian of the minor child in all respects and she has every right to apply before any department/ institution for any document or any other requirement which are to be fulfilled by the guardian, so that the minor should not suffer in any manner. Petitioners are impressed upon to withdraw their cases pending against each other. Accordingly, a decree is passed in their favour. Office to draw a decree sheet in compliance to this judgment. No order is passed as to costs. File shall be consigned to records after its due compilation under rule.”

It would be advantageous to reproduce first condition agreed upon by the parties before the Family Court, Jammu, which reads thus:

“i. Parties shall withdraw their respective litigations including litigations against their relatives/family members, pending before the Subordinate, District and the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh on second motion statement and further bound to make their respective statements, to enable the Hon'ble Courts to quash the criminal proceedings and acquittal in non-compoundable offences/ matters. Petitioner No.1 shall be bound to convince Shri Arun Dhar for withdrawal of the criminal proceedings preferred against petitioner No.1 and family members. Parties also agreed that they shall not file any further litigation amongst each other and relatives and family members.”

Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been rendered infructuous as the marriage between the petitioner and his wife has been dissolved with their consent. Both the petitioner and his wife, have made their respective statement before the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court, to finish off the case FIR impugned herein.

Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG, while appearing for the respondents-State, submits that in view of the private nature of the offences, and the complainant having reconciled, by compromise to the injury caused to her by the acts of the accused/petitioner, appropriate orders as warranted under law be passed.

A bare perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner as well as his wife namely, Deepika Gambhir were examined by the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court, wherein they have categorically deposed that all the matters between the parties have been amicably resolved.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in ‘Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.’, (2014) 6 SCC 466, laid down the guidelines for accepting or refusing settlements in criminal proceedings. Paragraphs 29.3 and 29.4 of the judgment being relevant are extracted as under:

“29.3  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.

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.”

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ‘Satender Sharma v. State & Anr.’, 2016 Supreme (Del) 1179, quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties, while reiterating the principle that cases of personal nature, arising out of misunderstanding and lacking any element of public interest, can be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

In the present case, the petitioner-accused has been charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 RPC. The offence under section 341 RPC is punishable with imprisonment of one month, or find or ₹500, or both, and offence under Section 323 RPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for 1 year, or fine of Rs. 1000, both are compoundable. The offence under section 506 is punishable of either description for two years, or fine, or both, is also compoundable. All these offences of which the petitioner-accused has been charge sheeted are of personal nature committed against the person of complainant, who by way of compromise deed, has decided not to press these offences before the trial Court and also reiterated the same before this Court.

In the present case also, the offences alleged against the respondent do not fall within the category of heinous or grave crimes of mental depravity, such as murder, rape, or dacoity. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant, their decision to live separately, this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue.

In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and his wife the complainant/victim, their decision to live separately, and parties have agreed to withdraw their respective litigations before the different courts, this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the investigation to continue, or the farce trial as well, before the court below.

In view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and as a result, FIR No.46/2016 dated 09.06.2016 registered at Police Station City, Jammu for the commission of offences under sections 341, 323 and 506 RPC, is hereby quashed.

Disposed of accordingly, along with connected application(s).