Premo Devi vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Anothers

Tashi Rabstan, J

Vide order dated 13.11.2019, Registrar Judicial of this Court was directed to record the statements of petitioner and respondent No. 2. Accordingly, on 14.11.2019 petitioner and respondent No. 2 appeared before the Registrar Judicial and their statements were recorded. Copies of the statements recorded by the Registrar Judicial are attached with the case file.

Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR No. 29/2016 dated 25.07.2016 registered with Police Station, Budhal for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 RPC.

Petitioner and respondent No. 2, present in person in Court, have been identified by their counsels Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate and Mr. Imran Ahmed Rather, Advocate, respectively and their signatures are also taken on the margin of the order sheet. They stated that this petition can be disposed of as the petitioner and respondent No.2 have already settled the dispute mutually by way of an Agreement dated 11.09.2019.

The Apex Court in a case, titled as, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors vs State of Gujrat and anr, (2017) 9 SCC 2 CRMC No. 545/2017 641, has observed that "the invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."

The aforesaid judgment directly applies to the present case.

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and settled law position, this petition is disposed of and FIR No. 29/2016 dated 25.07.2016 registered with Police Station, Budhal for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 RPC is hereby quashed.