J&K High Court Cautions Against Routine Quashing Of FIRs On Settlement Between Parties, Cites Larger Effect On Society
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has cautioned that an FIR and the consequent charge-report resulting from an investigation cannot be quashed routinely under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the parties have settled their differences.Raising an alarm of watchfulness Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani reasoned, “In case the FIRs and the criminal cases...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has cautioned that an FIR and the consequent charge-report resulting from an investigation cannot be quashed routinely under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the parties have settled their differences.
Raising an alarm of watchfulness Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani reasoned,
“In case the FIRs and the criminal cases culminating from the investigations are allowed to be quashed at the wish of the complainants and/or accused, the criminal justice system is likely to become a causality and the society at large will have to bear the consequences”.
Justice Wani made these observations in a case where the petitioner-husband Rajinder Kumar and others sought the quashing of FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC. The FIR had stemmed from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the J&K Prevention of Women against the Domestic Violence Act, 2010, by the respondent-wife, Ritu Aggarwal.
The petitioners contended that the FIR was a result of false complaint driven by animosity due to an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parties.
Ritu Aggarwal appeared in court, accompanied by her father, and confirmed that she had resolved the matrimonial dispute with the petitioners and obtained a mutual consent divorce decree from the Family Court, Jammu. She requested that the FIR be quashed as all issues had been settled.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court's precedent in "B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana," where the quashing of an FIR was permitted following a mutual compromise leading to the dissolution of marriage.
Deliberating on the inherent powers of the court with respect to compounding of offenses, Justice Wani clarified that both the old and new criminal procedure codes restrict compounding of offences but do not limit the High Court's powers under Section 482 to quash FIRs in extraordinary situations.
“The provisions of the Section 320 of the Code of 1973 corresponding to the Section 359 of the new Code i.e. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 („BNSS‟ for Short) do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code corresponding to Section 528 of the new Code (BNSS) regarding quashment of FIR‟s and criminal proceedings, for the sake of the society at large, which is the real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system”, the bench opined.
However, Justice Wani on the sidelines also highlighted that FIRs and subsequent criminal proceedings should not be routinely quashed merely because the parties have settled their disputes, citing potential harm to the criminal justice system and societal interests.
Citing Gopakumar B. Nair Vs. CBI reported in (2014) the court reiterated,
“Though quashment of non-compoundable offence under Section 482 Cr. P.C. following settlement between 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.”
Ultimately, considering the specific facts and the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with the investigation proceedings.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184