Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Shoiab Lone vs Ut Of J&K Ands Ors on 4 May, 2026
1
S. No.
suppl 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(through virtual mode)
Pronounced on . 04.05.2026
Uploaded on. 05.05.2026
CRM(M) 210/2023
Shoiab Lone ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Asif Ahmad Bhat, adv. with
Ms. Bhat Azra, adv.
VS.
UT of J&K ands ors ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy AG for R-1 to 4
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge.
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed in terms of
provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, (now repealed but applicable in the case and hereinafter
referred to as the Code for short), corresponding to Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for
short), the petitioner has sought the quashment of the case FIR
No. 96 of 2023 dated 13.05.2023 registered with the Police
Station, Baramulla U/ss 376, 342 & 506 IPC on the main
grounds that same is outcome of false and malicious complaint
filed the Respondent No.5 in order to black mail him. That the
genuineness of the complaint of Respondent No.5 basing the
impugned case FIR comes under a dense eclipse by her own
previous contradictory statements made by her before the
Respondents 3 and 4 in the shape of similar
CRM(M) 210/2023
2
reports/complaints. That the allegations made in the impugned
FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent
man can believe the same. That he is innocent and has not
committed the offences alleged in the impugned case FIR. That
the allegations made in the FIR even if taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against him. That the registration of
the impugned case FIR appears to be apparently actuated by
malafides. That the complaint basing the impugned FIR
constitutes a concocted story having been built up without of
reference to occurrence, date, time and year. That the impugned
FIR being outcome of false, frivolous and concocted allegations
deserves to be set aside in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukesh vs. State (NCT
Delhi) 2017 6 SCC 1 and State of Haryana vs. Bajan Lal 1992
Supp 1 SCC 335.
2. The facts of the petitioner’s case in brief are that he is a victim
of false propaganda launched by the Respondent
No.5/complainant with the malicious design to blackmail.
That the complainant/Respondent No.5 has filed numerous
complaints against him with the sole object to blackmailing
him for extraction of money.
That the Respondent No.5/complainant one and half year
before approached him and expressed her state of destitution
seeking some financial help whereupon he being social
activist assured her of financial help to the extent of his ability
CRM(M) 210/2023
3
as he used to do such things. That with the passage of time, the
Respondent No.5/complainant started to make some unjustified
demands and also used to threaten him in case her demands
are not fulfilled. That he in the recent past completely stopped
to give any sort of money to the complainant where upon she
was infuriated to file multiple bogus, false and fabricated
complaints against him apart from propagating and contending
that she is his legally wedded wife.
That in the first complaint lodged by the Respondent
No.5 with the police station Rajbagh on 03.05.2023, she alleged
him to be her legal husband. That in the said complaint lodged
by her with the Police Station Rajbagh she stated that on 2 nd
May, 2023 a lady namely Shabana came along with other lady
and men at the Government Quarter F-12 situated at Jawahir
Nagar wherein they physically harassed and mentally tortured
her besides causing damage to the Government property. That
the said quarter has been allotted to one Shoib Nabi Lone from
last 12 years and she has been residing there from last one
month on the consent of the said Shoib Nabi Lone who is her
legal husband. That in the second previous complaint lodged by
the Respondent No.5 with the Police Station Kreari Baramulla
she again alleged herself as the wife of the petitioner. That in
her said complaint she stated that she once visited the District
Police Office Baramulla in connection with some family issue,
where she met the petitioner Shoib Lone. That the petitioner
after listening to her problem assured her of full help and also
called her to his Baramulla Quarter. That she came into phone
CRM(M) 210/2023
4
contact with the petitioner through one of her relatives. That
after some time the petitioner disclosed the fact of his love
with her and his desire to enter into Nikah with her. That when
she asked the petitioner that he is already married, the later
assured her that he will maintain both the wives with justice.
That having regard to the petitioner’s being a politician they
decided to go outside the valley for entering into marriage by
execution of Nikah and accordingly they left for Delhi where
they stayed at a Hotel for about 7 days. That they performed the
Nikah and stayed at JK House for some time. That the
petitioner retained all the papers regarding their marriage with
him with the assurance of keeping the same at a safe place.
That after returning from Delhi, they used to meet frequently at
the Baramulla quarter. That when the secret of their marriage
began to leak with the knowledge of the same to the public, she
was forced to leave from her home and to stay with the
petitioner at a different places. That she demanded marriage
documents from the petitioner so as to justify the genuineness
of her living with him but he avoided.
That in the last complaint dated 13.05.2023 resulting into
the registration of the impugned case FIR she made the
allegation of commission of rape on the petitioner in
contradiction to her earlier complaints in which she had
allegedly claimed herself to be the petitioner’s wife. That in the
said complaint dated 13.05.2023 made by her to the SHO
Police Station Baramulla, she stated that she had some issue
with the police in connection whereof she met the petitioner
CRM(M) 210/2023
5
who assured her of full help. That the petitioner asked her to
meet him at his Baramulla Khajabagh quarter and she
accordingly went there in good faith. That the petitioner
committed rape upon her and threatened her of dire
consequences in case she tried to disclose. That he repeated the
crime multiple times and even wrongfully kept her confined in
his said accommodation for days together.
3. The official respondents 1 to 4 through their reply affidavit
resisted the petition on the grounds inter alia that same deserves
outright dismissal as the allegations against the petitioner stand
primafacie established as per the evidence collected during
investigation till date.
That the petitioner is involved in the commission of the
offences punishable U/ss 376, 342 and 506 IPC which are
highly anti-social and non-bailable.
That the contentions of the petitioner can be ascertained only
during the investigation of the case which is yet to be
concluded. That during the investigation of the case, the
statement of the victim/Respondent No.5 came to be recorded
before a Magistrate in terms of Provisions of Section 164 of the
Code. That her medical examination also came to be conducted
at GMC Baramulla. That the investigation conducted till date
primafacie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the
case. That, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in M. Narayan Dass v. State of Karnataka (2003)
11 SCC 251, the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be
exercised very sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the
CRM(M) 210/2023
6
rarest of rare cases. That the Court would not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations made in the FIR. That it can also be not
enquired whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to
be established or not.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an another case cited
as “XYZ vs. State of Gujarat” (2019) 10 SCC 337, has laid
down that Court cannot make a roving inquiry while
considering a petition U/s 482 of the Code.
That, in the said case, it was, inter alia, laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court had been carried away
by the agreement/settlement arrived at between the parties and
recorded a finding that the physical relationship between the
appellant and the second respondent was consensual, despite
allegations that documents had been obtained under threat and
coercion.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, while setting
aside the judgment of the High Court has held at its para-40,
that:-
“40. The core of the above sections namely 156, 157 and
159 of the Code is that if a police officer has reason to
suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he must
either proceed with the investigation or cause an
investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that
in a case where the police officer sees no sufficient ground
for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation
altogether; that the field of investigation of any cognizable
offence is exclusively within the domain of the
investigating agencies over which the courts cannot haveCRM(M) 210/2023
7control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the
proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation
proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to
investigation and that it is only in a case wherein a police
officer decides not to investigate an offence, the concerned
Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation
or in the alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can, at once
proceed or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to
proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to
dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code.”
4. The respondent No. 5/complainant, however, in her
reply/objection dated 29.01.2025, contradicted her earlier report
(FIR) and pleaded that she is an orphan lady who has only her
brothers at home for support in running the household. That it
was in the year 2020 when her brother was arrested by Police
in connection with some false and frivolous case and kept at
some unknown location without any information to the family.
That she in order to trace and seek the release of her brother
from the police custody, knocked the doors of every one for
help but nobody helped her. That one of her relatives suggested
her to meet the petitioner being Ex-MLA apart from being a
social activist and she accordingly did, approach the petitioner
for help who immediately assisted her in tracing out the
whereabouts of her brother in police custody besides helping
her financially as well. That even after helping in the release of
her brother, the petitioner on her request accommodated her in
his company on monthly salary. That, however, she was forced
and compelled, under threats from certain unknown persons, to
file a complaint against the petitioner.
CRM(M) 210/2023
8
That after some months, when her fear subsided and she
felt mentally safer, she filed an application on 22.11.2023
before the SHO, Police Station Baramulla, requesting that her
statement be re-recorded under Section 164 of the Code before
a Magistrate in order to bring on record certain material facts
which she had omitted under threat and coercion. That
however, the SHO of the concerned police station and the
Investigating Officer refused to get her statement re-recorded.
That she subsequently approached the Court of the learned
CJM, Baramulla, by way of a formal application seeking
directions to the SHO, Police Station Baramulla, and the
Investigating Officer of the case to have her statement re-
recorded in the impugned FIR. That however, the Court of the
learned Mobile Magistrate, Baramulla (Sub Judge), to whom
the said application was assigned, dismissed the same vide
order dated 06.12.2023, without appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case. That she even requested the I.O of
the case to place on record her statement prepared and signed
by her for consideration but he did not agree, to the said extent
also. That she thereafter approached this Court through the
medium of a petition under Section 482 of the Code, bearing
No. CRM(M) 731 of 2023, seeking setting aside of the order
dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate declining to
re-record her statement, while assigning cogent and justified
reasons in the said petition.
CRM(M) 210/2023
9
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and
the learned counsel for the official respondent/UT. Considered
their rival submissions. The private respondent No.
5/complainant, however, appeared in person before the Court on
30.09.2025 and submitted that the complaint lodged by her with
Police Station Baramulla on 13.05.2023 is not genuine, having
been filed under threat and coercion at the relevant time. She
further submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be
allowed and that the impugned FIR be quashed, as she has no
objection to the same.
6. I have perused the instant petition, the replies filed by the
respondents, the earlier petition bearing No. CRM(M) 731/2023
filed by respondent No. 5, and the documents annexed with the
present petition, especially the earlier complaints made by
respondent No. 5/complainant at Police Stations Rajbagh
Srinagar and Kreari, respectively.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments
advanced on both the sides.
8. Keeping in view the aforementioned perusal and consideration,
this court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice
in case the instant petition is allowed and the impugned case FIR
bearing No. 96 of 2023 dated 13.05.2023 of P/S Baramulla is
quashed.
9. The Court feels convinced to quash the impugned FIR on twin
grounds:-
CRM(M) 210/2023
10
i) The allegations in the complaint dated 13.05.2023
resulting into the registration of the impugned case FIR
96/2023 of P/S Baramulla look to be apparently false and
doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case having
regard to the earlier complaints made by the
complainant/Respondent No.5 with the Police Stations
Rajbagh, Srinagar and Kreari, Baramulla.
ii) The complainant/Respondent No.5 has herself appeared
in the court on 30.09.2025 and submitted that she has no
objection in allowing the petition and setting aside the
impugned case FIR.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
relationship, if any which was previously alleged by the
complainant/respondent No. 5 in her complaint dated 13.05.2023
as forced and under undue influence, appears to have been
consensual. In the earlier two complaints, laid first in point of
time, the complainant had, inter alia, alleged herself to be the
wife of the petitioner/accused. However, the petitioner, in his
petition, described the said allegations as attempts by the
complainant/respondent No. 5 to blackmail him.
Respondent No. 5, who is major and was so both at the time of
lodging the complaint dated 13.05.2023, which resulted in the
registration of the impugned FIR, as well as at the time of filing
the earlier complaints before Police Stations Rajbagh Srinagar
and Kreari Baramulla, appeared before the Court on 30.09.2025
and submitted that she has no objection in allowing the petition
and setting aside the impugned FIR.
11. The conduct of the respondent No.5/complainant in approaching
the SHO Police Station Barmaulla and the I.O of the case first in
CRM(M) 210/2023
11
point of time during the investigation of the impugned case FIR
with the request to re-record her statement U/s 164 of the Code,
her subsequently approaching the CJM Baramulla with an
application seeking re-recording of her statement pursuant to the
denial of SHO/I.O of the case and the filing of a petition earlier
before this Court bearing CRM(M) 731/2023 seeking the same
prayer of re-recording of her statement u/s 164 of the Code upon
being disappointed even from the court of the Ld. Magistrate
(Special Mobile Magistrate/Sub Judge Baramulla) can be
considered as a ground for allowing the petition with the
quashment of the impugned FIR, in the ends of justice. Even if,
she cannot be supposed for arguments sake to have struggles for
re-recording of her statement on factual basis yet in the alternate
the said conduct of the complainant can be considered to
presume and believe that she any way wanted to be out of picture
for the sake of her reputation.
12. The Respondent No.5/complainant in her reply/objection to the
instant petition has pleaded that she lodged the complaint dated
13.05.2023 upon threat and coercion.
13. It is also needful to mention that this court has already vide its
order dated 21.02.2025 passed on the earlier petition of the
complainant/Respondent No.5 CRM(M) 731/2023 observed that
there is no bar under law for re-recording of the statement of a
victim/complainant as the sole object of the investigation process
is to ascertain the genuineness of a complaint/allegation and not
to file a case before the Court. This Court has already vide
CRM(M) 210/2023
12
aforesaid order directed SHO/IO of the case to consider the re-
recording of the statement of the complainant/Respondent No. 5
(petitioner therein) with the direction to take a final call in the
matter by perusing and considering all the evidence in
juxtaposition. The court was told that the SHO Police Station
Baramulla/IO of the case did not re-record the statement of the
Respondent No.5/complainant pursuant to the said order dated
21.02.2025 of this Court. The authoritative law relied upon by
the learned counsel for the official respondents/UT has been laid
down in the facts and circumstances of their own cases and even
in the said referred cases the quashment of FIR in the case like
the instant one has not been barred.
14. In view of the desire of the Respondent No.5/complainant
regarding the setting aside of the impugned FIR after allowing
the petition as evidenced from her verbal submission made at the
hearing of the case on 30.09.2025, her reply to the instant
petition her earlier reports made to police stations Rajbagh
Srinagar and Kreari Baramulla and also from the fact of her
filing the earlier petition CRM(M) 731/2023 for re-recording her
statement, there appears to be no prospect of the case even if put
to trial, ending in favour of the prosecution.
15. The conduct of the respondent No.5/complainant as hereinbefore
referred to amounts to the implied prayer for compounding of
the matter on her part. As hereinbefore mentioned, this court
feels it to meet the ends of justice in case the impugned case FIR
CRM(M) 210/2023
13
is set aside as the same is likely to save the complainant from the
agony of trial and any dent to her reputation.
16. Although this Court is of the opinion that an FIR cannot be
generally and in routine manner allowed to be quashed in
exercise of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS
corresponding to Section 482 of the Code on the main ground
that the parties have settled their controversy that had become the
cause of occurrence, yet exceptional ground appears to be made
out in the opinion of the Court, in the facts and the circumstances
of the case, for invoking its extraordinary powers under Section
528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in question.
17. The provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to
Section 320 of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent
the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS
corresponding to Section 482 of the Code regarding quashment
of FIR’s and criminal proceedings for the sake of the society at
large which is real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery
system.
18. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with an authoritative
judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as “Gopal Kumar B.
Nar Vs. CBI (2014) 5 SCC 800″ in which it has been held that
“though quashment of non- compoundable offence under Section
482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties would not
amount to circumvention of Section 320, but such power has to
be exercised with care and caution and would depend on facts of
each case.”
CRM(M) 210/2023
14
19. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs State of Gujarat
and Anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641″ has considered the aspect of the
invocation of the inherent powers by the High Courts under
Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the
Code and was pleased to lay down some broad governing
principles for invocation of such power of the High Courts. The
relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under for the
sake of convenience:-
“Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The
statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a
superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii)
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on
the subject, may be summarized in the following
propositions:-
“(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer
new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable;
CRM(M) 210/2023
15
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision
to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons
for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming
or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;
CRM(M) 210/2023
16
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender
is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance.”
20. It is also needful to reproduce the relevant portion of the law laid
down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Kapil Gupta Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and Anr 2022 15 SCC 44″ on an appeal,
impugning the judgment and order dated 28.09.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi thereby
dismissing the criminal petition, which was filed for quashing the
criminal proceedings, as under:
“i. In present case, consent given by respondent No. 2 for
putting an end to proceeding was voluntary and without
any coercion and duress. Respondent No. 2, in order to live
in peace, wants to bring an end to criminal proceedings.
ii. Though court should be slow in quashing proceedings
wherein heinous and serious offences are involved. High
Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there
exists material for incorporation of such offences or as to
whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would
lead to proving for offence charged with.
iii. Court has also to take into consideration as to whether
settlement between the parties is going to result in harmonyCRM(M) 210/2023
17between them which may improve their mutual
relationship.
iv. It is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of
proceedings. If application (for quashing proceedings) is
made at belated stage wherein evidence has been led and
matter is at stage of arguments or judgment, Court should
be slow to exercise power to quash proceedings. However,
if such application is made at initial stage before
commencement of trial, said factor will weight with Court
in exercising its power.
v. In present case, facts and circumstances are peculiar.
Respondent 2 is young lady of 23 years. She feels that
going through trial in one case, where she is complainant,
and in other case, wherein she is accused, would rob prime
of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face trial rather
than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of
undergoing trial.
vi. In both aforesaid cases, though charge-sheets have been
filed, charges are yet to be framed and as such, trial has not
yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since
Respondent 2 herself is not supporting prosecution case,
even if criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in
nothing else than acquittal. If request of parties is denied, it
will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case
already overburdened criminal courts.
vii. In that view of the matter, though in heinous or serious
crime like rape, Court should not normally exercise powers
of quashing proceedings, in peculiar facts and
circumstances of present case and in order to give succor to
respondent 2 so that she is saved from further agony of
facing two criminal trials, one as victim and one as
accused, present is a fit case wherein extraordinary powers
of Supreme Court be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings. viii. In that view of the matter, proceedings in
criminal cases arising out of both aforesaid FIRs are
quashed and set aside.”
CRM(M) 210/2023
18
21. This Court in its opinion also feels fortified with the authoritative
judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited as “Gyan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and “Narender Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466”, the relevant paras of which
are reproduced as hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303″
“In other words, 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 proceedings.”
“Narender Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466″
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
Power conferred under Section 482of the Code is to be distinguished
from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offence
sunder Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However,
this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution;
When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure :(i) ends of justice, or(ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion an
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
CRM(M) 210/2023
19Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences
alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.”
22. Having regard to the implied settlement of the dispute between
the petitioner/accused and the complainant/respondent No. 5, the
continuance of the criminal proceedings sought to be quashed
appears to be a futile exercise, for just completing the procedure
for putting a matter to trial for recording an order of acquittal at
the end.
23. In its opinion, this Court is fortified with the law laid down
by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in, (i) Satesh Nehra vs Delhi
Administration 1996 (III) Crimes 85 SC; (ii) Madan Mohan
Abott vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1969′ and (iii)
JugdishChananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr. AIR
2008 SC 1968. Relevant Paras of the referred judgments deserve
a needful mention as under:
“Satesh Nehra V/S Delhi Adminstration 1996 (III) Crimes 85 SC.”
“But when the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the
case, ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not
be wasted for holding a trial only for purpose of formally
completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion at a future
date. Most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure
of work load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain, that the trial
would be only an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is
advisable to truncate or swap the proceedings.”
“(ii) Madan Mohan Abott Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969”
CRM(M) 210/2023
20
“In disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature
the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in
criminal proceedings keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a
result in favour of the prosecution in a luxury, which the courts,
grossly overburdened as they cannot afford and that the time so save
can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.”
“(iii) Jugdish Chananan and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr AIR
2008 SC 1968”
“In the light of the compromise it is unlikely that the prosecution will
succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal
one and no public policy is involved in the transaction that had been
entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings,
therefore, would be a futile exercise we accordingly allow the appeal
and quash FIR83/12.3.2001 P/S City Sonapat and on subsequent
proceedings.”
24. Provisions of Section 320 of the Code corresponding to Section
359 of the BNSS do not restrict but only limit the powers of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code corresponding to Section
528 of BNSS so that the extraordinary powers are used only in
exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. Provisions
of Section 482 of the Code (528 of BNSS) have an overriding
affect and are not to be read as subject to the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code (359 of BNSS).
25. The court is required to form an opinion in the facts and the
circumstances of a particular case, as to whether the quashment
of criminal proceedings is likely to meet the ends of justice.
26. This Court in the attending facts and circumstances is of the
opinion that an exceptional case appears to be made out, and the
non-interference by this Court is likely to result in miscarriage of
justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “MS Neharika
CRM(M) 210/2023
21
Infrastructure Private Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(2021) CriLJ 2419″decided on 13.04.2021, has laid down certain
guiding principles for consideration in connection with the
hearing of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code
corresponding to Section 528 BNSS or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Although the Hon’ble Apex Court has
stressed that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage as the functions of judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping, yet the interference in
exceptional circumstances has been permitted.
27. This court is conscious of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors v. Bhajan Lal and
ors AIR 1992 SC604, Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakesh and ors
(2004) SC 4320 and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors 2021 CrLJ 2419: SCC online SC 315,
to the effect that courts should not normally interfere with the
criminal proceedings at the initial stage especially where
commission of the cognizable offence(s) is apparently
discernible, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, for
the allegations being absurd or actuated by malafides/malice.
28. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of the Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior, in case titled Santosh Gujjar and Ors vs. the
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors Misc Criminal Case No. 10163
of 2024 dated 20.08.2024 at para 29.5 of the judgment as under:
“While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal casesCRM(M) 210/2023
22would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
29. In the backdrop of the aforementioned discussion, the petition is
allowed and the impugned case FIR bearing No. 96/2023 dated
13.05.2023 registered with Police Station, Baramulla, is quashed.
30. It is needful to mention that this court had already vide order
dated 22.05.2023 stayed the investigation in the case.
31. Disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu:
04..05.2025
“Ayaz”
i) Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes
ii) Whether the judgment is reportable in law journal ? Yes
iii) Whether the judgment is reportable in press/media ? NO.
Syed Ayaz Hussain
2025.11.18 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM(M) 210/2023
