Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jammu vs Jammu on 13 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 526/2026
Pronounced on : 13.07.2026
Uploaded on : 14.07.2026
1. Rahul Sharma,
S/O Darshan Lal
R/O Bank Colony, Top-Paloura,
Jammu, J&K.
2. Suman Kumari,
W/O Darshan Lal,
R/O Bank Colony, Top-Paloura,
Jammu, J&K.
3. Darshan Lal,
S/O Durga Dass,
R/O Bank Colony, Top-Paloura,
Jammu, J&K.
....Petitioners
Through:-
Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate.
V/S
1. UT of J&K
Incharge Police Station, Janipur,
J&K.
2. Meenakshi Sharma
W/O Rahul Sharma
R/O Bank Colony, Top-Paloura,
Jammu, J&K.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. P.D Singh, Dy. AG.
Mr. Ritesh Mahajan, Advocate.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
13.07.2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of
chargesheet No. 43/2023 arising out of FIR No.
41/2023 under sections 498-A, 342, 323 IPC registered
at Police Station, Janipur, Jammu.
CRM(M) No. 526/2026 Page 1 of 3
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2067
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
that the parties have compromised with each other and
pray that the petition be allowed. The statements of
petitioner No 3-Darshan Lal, father of petitioner No. 1
and respondent No. 2-Meenakshi Sharma have been
recorded by the learned Registrar Judicial. The same
are taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as accused and
respondent No. 2 as complainant, have stated at the
Bar that in view of compromise reached between
the parties and supported by them in their
cross-examination before this Court, the petition be
allowed, and the charge-sheet be quashed. Mr. Pawan
Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing for the
respondent No. 1-UT of J&K has raised no serious
objection to the plea raised by the learned counsel for
the parties.
4. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court in
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the
case reported as B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana
& Anr., 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028, has held as under:-
“14.There is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A
in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-
technical view would be counter productive and
would act against interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was added. There is
every likelihood that non exercise of inherent power
to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice
would prevent women from settling earlier. That is
not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
CRM(M) No. 526/2026 Page 2 of 3
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2067
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold
that the High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not
limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the
Code.”
5. The aforesaid view of the Apex Court in the judgment
(supra) has subsequently been reiterated in another
judgment titled as Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., 2014(6) SCC 466.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned cases and in view of the statements
having been made by the parties that they have entered
into a compromise, the prosecution in the case would
serve no fruitful purpose, as it would ultimately be
farce/mock trial, for the purpose of conclusion by
asking both the sides to undergo the mill of leading
evidence. In these circumstances, it would be an
abuse of process, as such, quashing of the chargesheet
would secure the ends of justice.
7. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned
chargesheet No. 43/2023 arising out of FIR No.
41/2023 under sections 498-A, 342, 323 IPC registered
at Police Station, Janipur, Jammu alongwith
consequential proceedings before the trial Court is
quashed.
8. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith
application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
13.07.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
CRM(M) No. 526/2026 Page 3 of 3
