High Court clarifies and affirms, following Supreme Court precedent, that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash even non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement, except in cases of heinous crimes or offences affecting society at large. The judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in criminal matters involving settlement.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/258/2024 of KRISHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs U T OF J AND K TH SHO POLICE STATION ARNIA JAMMU AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | JKHC020017962024 |
| Date of Registration | 19-04-2024 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent, especially Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Procedure (Section 482 CrPC, Compounding of Offences) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC enable it to quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-compoundable offences, when parties have reached a settlement, provided the offences are not heinous in nature or against public interest. The decision relies on and applies the Supreme Court’s guidelines from Narinder Singh (2014), which differentiates compoundable and non-compoundable offences, and limits the exercise of the power to cases not involving serious crimes like murder, rape, or dacoity. The court found that the present offences lacked heinous character or societal impact, and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ compromise. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court applies the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh, referencing the distinction between powers to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC and to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It reiterates that for non-heinous offences of a private nature settled between parties, Section 482 may be invoked. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Complainant alleged hurt and theft by petitioners; FIR No. 0068 dated 22.07.2022 registered under Sections 323, 382, 427, 147 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. After investigation, charge-sheet No.79/2022 filed. During proceedings, parties executed a compromise deed dated 19.03.2024, and the complainant had no further grievance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jammu and Kashmir |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and is in consonance with Supreme Court jurisprudence |
| Follows | Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that High Courts can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences on settlement between parties except in cases involving heinous crimes.
- Draws a clear line following Narinder Singh: heinous crimes or those affecting society at large remain outside the scope of quashing via settlement.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment in similar non-heinous, private-party criminal matters to support quashing petitions where settlement is reached.
- The court underscored the importance of compromise in promoting justice and preventing abuse of process.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the compromise deed entered between petitioners and the complainant, with the latter recording no objection to quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings.
- Relied on Supreme Court guidelines in Narinder Singh (2014) which distinguishes between compounding under Section 320 CrPC and inherent quashing power under Section 482 CrPC.
- The Supreme Court precedent highlights that non-compoundable offences of a private character (civil, matrimonial, commercial, etc.) can be quashed when settled, but not heinous offences or those affecting society.
- The court held that the present offences were not heinous or of societal impact, making the case fit for Section 482 quashing.
- Considered the bleak possibility of conviction and the unnecessary burden and injustice of continuing proceedings post-settlement.
- Concluded that quashing was warranted to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that an amicable settlement has been reached with the complainant.
- Provided a compromise deed dated 19.03.2024, with both petitioners and respondent No. 2 supporting quashing.
- Argued that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
- Confirmed execution of the compromise, with no grievance remaining.
- Stated no objection if the FIR and charge-sheet are quashed.
Factual Background
Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners and others caused hurt to her son and committed theft. FIR No. 0068 dated 22.07.2022 was registered at Police Station Arnia under Sections 323, 382, 427, 147 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Upon investigation, charges were framed and the matter was pending before the Judicial Magistrate in R.S. Pura. While proceedings were ongoing, the parties executed a compromise deed dated 19.03.2024, after which the complainant expressed no further grievance against the petitioners.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 Cr.P.C: High Court’s inherent powers encompass quashing of criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse, even for non-compoundable offences, subject to limitations per Supreme Court guidelines.
- Section 320 Cr.P.C: Powers to compound offences are limited to those specifically listed; distinction maintained by the court.
- The judgment applies the Supreme Court’s interpretation but does not undertake further statutory construction beyond referencing the existing guidelines.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms the Supreme Court ruling in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.