Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/237/2022 of SAHIL KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SHO POLICE STATION DOMANA JAMMU AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2022
OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH ATJAMMU CRM(M)237/2022 CrlM 527/2022 Sahil Kumar Sharma and others .....Petitioner/appellants (s) Through:- Mr. Mohd. Latif Malik, Advocate, v/s Union Territory of J&K and another .....Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH ATJAMMU
CRM(M)237/2022 CrlM 527/2022
Sahil Kumar Sharma and others
.....Petitioner/appellants (s) Through:-Mr. Mohd. Latif Malik, Advocate,
v/s
Union Territory of J&K and another .....Respondent(s)
Through:-Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. By this petitionfiled under Section 482 Cr.P.C petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 398/2016 registered with Police Station Domana, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 147 RPC and subsequent proceedings in the same.
2. The case in brief is that a dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent No. 2- with respect of land measuring 01 kanal 5 ½ Marla comprising under Khasra No. 182 min, Khata No. 79 min, Khewat No.38 situated at Village Machallian Tehsil and District Jammu. It is stated that due to the said dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, various civil and criminal cases were filed by them against each other and the FIR in question is also result of the same. Respondent no. 2-Rajneesh Sharma is stated to have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and consequently he has stated he has no objection in case impugned FIR is quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputes and differences have been amicably settled between the respondent No. 2 herein and petitioners and memo of compromise also executed thereof, as such, prays for disposal of the instant petition and consequently, quashment of the FIR in question. The statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have already been recorded in support of the compromise before the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
4. It will be appropriate and advantageous herein to refer to the case titled Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 in which the Supreme Court had amply clarified the legal position in recognizing the position of compromise. The court in the above mentioned case held that “……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.”
5. Thus, the Supreme Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted
6. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings, while quashing the impugned FIR, therefore, FIR No. 398/2016 for commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 147 RPC shall stand quashed.
7. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly, along with connected applications.
Jammu31.12.2022 Bir
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE