Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Near Bsf Camp vs Near K. C. Public School on 5 August, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 544/2026
CrlM No. 961/2026
Pronounced on : 05.08.2026
Uploaded on : 06.08.2026
1. Orrin Dev Singh,
S/O Rajbir Singh,
R/O Mandlik Nagar
Phase-2, Paloura,
Toph Sherkhanian, Jammu.
2. Vikas Kotwal,
S/O Sanjay Kumar,
R/O Kandosu,
Tehsil-Bhalla, District Doda
A/P H. No. 42, Mandlik Nagar,
JK Colony Top Sherkhania, Jammu.
3. Virender Singh,
S/O Angrez Singh,
R/O H. No. 152, Paloura Top
Near BSF Camp, Jammu.
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Nakul Singh, Advocate.
V/S
1. U T of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through In-charge, Police Station,
Domana, Jammu.
2. Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh,
S/O Late Chamail Singh,
R/O Krishna Niwas,
near K. C. Public School, Jammu.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG for R-1.
Mr. Vikram Singh Chib, Adv. for R-2.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of FIR
CRM(M) No. 544/2026 Page 1 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2503
No. 44/2022 dated 05.02.2022 for commission of the
offences punishable under sections 451, 147, 149, 504
& 506 of IPC registered against the petitioners at Police
Station, Domana and the chargesheet No. 783/2024
arising out of it pending adjudication before the court
of learned Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, 13th
F.C. Jammu.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 2/complainant that the parties
have entered into compromise and pray that the
petition be allowed on the basis of compromise.
Petitioners as accused and the respondent No. 2 as
complainant 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
respondent No. 2/complainant has stated at the Bar
that in view of compromise reached between the
parties, the petition be allowed, and the impugned FIR
and chargesheet arising out of it, along with all the
criminal proceedings be quashed, to secure the ends of
justice.
4. Mr. P.D. Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing for the
respondent-UT of J&K has raised no serious objection
to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, stating that the offences in the impugned
FIR are of personal nature inter se parties.
5. 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
CRM(M) No. 544/2026 Page 2 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2503
case reported as Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 has held as under:-
“35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was
recorded on the basis of statement of the
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”.
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that
there have been some disputes which led to the
aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the
complainant. In this context when we find that the
elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in
the matter and the parties have not only buried their
hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The
evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even
started. In view of compromise between parties, there
is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward
in support of the prosecution case. Even though
nature of injuries can still be established by producing
the doctor as witness who conducted medical
examination, it may become difficult to prove as to
who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction,
therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be
unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all
these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of
the opinion that the compromise between the parties
be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out
of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police
Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed.
We order accordingly.”
6. 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
CRM(M) No. 544/2026 Page 3 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2503
justice shall be defeated. 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.
7. All the offences of which petitioners have been accused
in the impugned FIR are of personal nature with no
public overtones and in such case the parties should
not be discouraged from settling their
disputes/offences through mutual compromise.
8. 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.
9. 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
prosecution. In these circumstances, it would be an
abuse of process, as such, quashing of the impugned
FIR and chargesheet along with all the criminal
CRM(M) No. 544/2026 Page 4 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2503
proceedings arising therefrom would secure the ends of
justice.
10. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned
FIR No. 44/2022 dated 05.02.2022 for offences
punishable under sections 451, 147, 149, 504 and 506
of IPC registered at Police Station, Domana and
chargesheet No. 783/2024 pending adjudication before
the court of learned Sub Judge/Special Mobile
Magistrate 13th F.C., Jammu along with all criminal
proceedings arising therefrom are, thus, quashed. A
copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the trial
court for information and record.
11. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith
application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
05.08.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
CRM(M) No. 544/2026 Page 5 of 5
