Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Channi Rama vs R/O Asrarabad on 20 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 488/2026
Pronounced on : 20.07.2026
Uploaded on : 23.07.2026
1. Basharat Razaq, S/O Mohd. Razaq.
2. Parveen Akhter, W/O Mohd. Razaq
3. Nazarat Razaq, D/O Mohd. Razaq
All residents of Dodasanbala,
Thanamandi, Rajouri
A/P Polly Hill Estate,
Channi Rama, Jammu.
4. Bilal Yousif, S/O Mohd. Yousaf
R/O Saim Sammat,
Thanamandi, Rajouri
A/P Polly Hill Estate,
Channi Rama, Jammu.
....Petitioners
Through:-
Mr. Sohail Mustafa, Advocate.
V/S
1. UT of J&K Through
Commissioner/Secretary
Department of Home Affairs
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Station House Officer,
Police Station, Women Cell,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
3. Station House Officer,
Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.
4. Shehdad Younis
W/O Basharat Razaq
R/O Dodasanbala,
Thanamandi, Rajouri
A/P Polly Hill Estate Channi.
5. Mohd. Younis
S/O Abdul Aziz
R/O Asrarabad, Sidhra, Jammu.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Mursaleen Suharwardy, Advocate for R-4 & 5.
CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 1 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
20.07.2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of
criminal proceedings of chargesheet bearing No.
24/2023 dated 10.10.2023 arising out of FIR No.
0047/2023 dated 24.08.2023 for offences punishable
under sections 498-A, 323, 342, 506,109 IPC registered
at Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and chargesheet
No. 01/2025 dated 24.12.2025 arising out of FIR No.
171/2023 dated 05.06.2023 for offences under
Sections 341, 323, 427, 382, 201, 34 of IPC registered
at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents’ No.
4 and 5 that the parties have compromised with each
other and pray that the petition be allowed. All the
petitioners, namely, Basharat Razaq, Parveen Akhter,
Nazarat Razaq, Bilal Yousif as accused and both the
respondents, namely, Shehdab Younis and Mohd.
Younis as complainants were examined by the learned
Registrar Judicial. Their statements, in support of the
compromise, have been placed on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and
respondents No. 4 and 5/complainants, have stated at
the Bar that in view of compromise reached between
the parties and supported by them in their
examination before this Court, submit that the petition
be allowed, and the impugned FIRs and charge-sheets
arising out of the impugned FIRs be quashed, to secure
the ends of justice.
CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 2 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226
4. 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, stating that the offences in both the
chargesheets arising out of the impugned FIRs are of
personal nature inter se parties.
5. Chargesheet laid against the petitioners arising out of
FIR No. 47/2023 lodged by respondent No. 4, has
accusation of subjecting her by her husband and in-
laws to the offences punishable under sections 498-A,
323, 342, 506, 109 IPC whereas, chargesheet laid
against them arising out of FIR No. 171/2023 lodged
by respondent No. 5- father of respondent No. 4, with
the accusation that petitioners had committed offences
punishable under sections 341, 323, 427, 382, 201, 34
of IPC.
6. Both the cases seem to have been registered due to
marital discord between the couple, petitioner No. 1
Basharat Razaq and respondent No. 4-Shehdab Younis
and acrimony between their respective families,
resulting into lodging of FIRs. Since the estranged
couple has reconciled and so by their families,
continuation of the prosecution of criminal cases would
be a nightmare for them.
7. 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 herCRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 3 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226husband. 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.
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.”
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.
8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the High Court, within the
framework of inherent power, may quash criminal
proceedings if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender
being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated.
9. The Apex Court in another case titled Mange Ram Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, (2025) INSC 962,
after discussing the earlier judgments on the issue of
the family members of the husband being
unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings in
matrimonial discord has laid down that continuation of
criminal proceedings in the event of an agreement
between the parties even in the case of non-
CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 4 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226
compoundable offences especially in matters of
matrimony would only be an exercise in futility and
justice demands that the dispute between the parties is
put to an end and peace is restored.
10. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 78, there is a clear cut observation by
the Hon’ble Apex Court that when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, proceedings with the
trial would be futile and the ends of justice require that
the settlement be given effect to by quashing the
proceedings, as otherwise, it would be a grave abuse of
process particularly when the dispute is settled and
resolved.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal enunciation by the Apex
Court on the point, it is the duty of this Court to being
quietus to personal disputes that have already been
settled between the parties. This Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 would
consider the continuation of the criminal proceedings
as an abuse of the process of the court.
12. 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 both the cases,
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
prosecution. In these circumstances, it would be an
abuse of process, as such, quashing of the impugned
FIRs and chargesheets would secure the ends of
justice.
CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 5 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2226
13. All the offences of which petitioners have been accused
in both the cases are of personal nature with no public
overtones and are also not very grievous in nature and
in such case the parties should not be discouraged
from settling their disputes/offences through mutual
compromise.
14. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned
FIRs No. 0047/2023 dated 24.08.2023 under sections
498-A, 323, 342, 506, 109 IPC registered at Police
Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and FIR
No. 171/2023 dated 05.06.2023 under Sections 341,
323, 427, 382, 201, 34 IPC and chargesheet Nos.
24/2023 and 01/2025 respectively arising out of the
impugned FIRs, alongwith consequential proceedings
against the petitioners before the trial courts are, thus,
quashed.
15. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith
application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
20.07.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
CRM(M) No. 488/2026 Page 6 of 6
