Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Tehsil And District Rajouri vs Tehsil And District Rajouri on 24 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025
Pronounced on : 24.07.2026
Uploaded on : 28.07.2026
1. Mohd. Shafaq S/O Mohd. Manzoor
R/O Ghai Doongi Brahmana
Tehsil and District Rajouri.
2. Danish Chowdhary S/O Khaliq Hussain
R/O Dhara Sanwa
Tehsil and District Rajouri.
....Petitioners
Through:-
Mr. Sumir Pandita, Advocate.
V/S
1. UT of J&K Through
SHO Police Station, Rajouri
District Rajouri.
2. Nazma Kouser W/O Mohd. Shafaq
R/O Village Gai, Rajouri
Tehsil and District Rajouri.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1.
Mr. Shamas Ud Din Shaaz, Advocate for R-2.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
24.07.2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of FIR
No. 478/2025 dated 20.09.2025 for offences
punishable under sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352
of BNS registered at Police Station, Rajouri along with
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2
that the parties have compromised with each other and
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Page 1 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2301
pray that the petition be allowed. Both the petitioners,
namely, Mohd. Shafaq and Danish Chowdhary as
accused and the respondent-Nazma Kouser 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, 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 FIR and proceedings arising out of the said
FIR be quashed, to secure the ends of justice.
4. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA 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 the impugned FIR are of
personal nature inter se parties.
5. The impugned FIR seems to have been registered due
to marital discord between the couple, petitioner No. 1
Mohd. Shafaq and respondent No. 2-Nazma Kouser
and acrimony between their respective families,
resulting into lodging of FIR. Since the estranged
couple has reconciled and so by their families,
continuation of the prosecution of criminal cases would
be a nightmare for them.
6. 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 Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 has held as under:-
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Page 2 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2301
“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.”
7. 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. 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
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Page 3 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2301
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.
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 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
FIR and proceedings arising therefrom would secure
the ends of justice.
10. All the offences of which petitioners have been accused
in the impugned FIR 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.
11. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed. Impugned
FIR No. 478/2025 dated 20.09.2025 alongwith
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Page 4 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2301
subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR
against the petitioners are, thus, quashed.
12. The petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed alongwith
application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
24.07.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
CRM(M) No. 1159/2025 Page 5 of 5
