Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Rouf Dar vs Union Territory Through on 17 April, 2026
Serial No. 32
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 599/2024
CrLM(1386/2024)
ABDUL ROUF DAR ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: None
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ...Respondent(s)
POLICE STATION BATAMALOO AND
ANR.
Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
17.04.2026
1. Nemo for parties.
2. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, seeks quashing of FIR
No. 192/2017 registered for offences under Sections 323, 354 and
506 RPC, primarily on the ground that the same emanates from a
matrimonial dispute which now stands amicably resolved between
the parties.
3. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the parties appeared
before the Registrar Judicial and their statements were recorded on
oath. Respondent No. 2 (complainant) stated that the FIR in question
was lodged due to matrimonial discord; however, with the
intervention of respectable persons, the parties have settled their
disputes vide compromise dated 15.04.2024 and have resumed
matrimonial relations. She further stated that she has no objection to
the quashing of the FIR. The petitioner also corroborated the said
position.
4. It is pertinent to note that offences under Sections 323 and 506 RPC
are compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, whereas the offence under Section 354 RPC is non-
compoundable. However, the law is well-settled that this Court, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can quash criminal proceedings
even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is
essentially private in nature and continuation of proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving offences of
a personal and private nature, particularly arising out of matrimonial
disputes, can be quashed if the parties have amicably settled the
matter. This principle was further elaborated in Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab, 2014 6 SCC 466, wherein it was observed that the
High Court must consider whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and whether continuation of proceedings would serve any
useful purpose.
6. In the present case, the parties have not only entered into a
compromise but have also resumed cohabitation. The complainant
has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the matter.
In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction is bleak and
continuation of proceedings would only result in unnecessary
harassment and abuse of the process of law.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to
secure the ends of justice.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 192/2017
registered under Sections 323, 354 and 506 RPC, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
9. Disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
17.04.2026
Akhil Dev
