Srinagar, Sept. 4, KDC: Terming the circumstances “a very disturbing scenario,” the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash a criminal trial involving charges of rape and forced abortion against a serving Police Sub-Inspector on the basis of a notarised compromise deed, ruling that a victim “is nobody to give an accused person such a pass.”
Hearing a petition filed by Sub-Inspector Iahtsham Ul Haq, a Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti declined to entertain an out-of-court settlement dated August 12, 2026, wherein the 24-year-old complainant purported to condone the alleged offences.
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Executive Police formerly posted at Police Station Bus Stand, Jammu, stands trial before the Fast Track Court, Jammu, following chargesheet No. 47/2025 dated April 21, 2025, for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 354-C (voyeurism), 312 (causing miscarriage), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Perusing the records, Justice Bharti flagged the systemic hurdles faced by the victim before the case could even be registered. The Court took serious note of the fact that neither the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) nor the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu, had initially entertained the complainant’s accusations, forcing her to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.
The case was subsequently assigned to the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Jammu, who invoked powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the SHO of Police Station Bahu Fort to register an FIR. Consequently, FIR No. 0203/2024 was registered on August 23, 2024, naming the Sub-Inspector as the sole accused.
The High Court noted that despite the registration of the FIR in August 2024, the petitioner was arrested only on November 25, 2024, nearly three months later, while serving as a Sub-Inspector at Police Station Bus Stand, and was subsequently admitted to bail within a month while investigation was still in progress.
Scrutinizing the subsequent compromise placed before the bench to quash the chargesheet, Justice Bharti observed,”A very disturbing scenario is projecting itself before this Court which cannot be allowed to slip from the court’s serious concern. The victim of alleged commission of offences under sections 376/354-C/312/313/314/315/316/383/417/493/503 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the hands of none else than the petitioner, who happens to be a Sub-Inspector posted in Executive Police, had found herself in a situation where not even the Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station concerned as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu believing her accusations, had lead her to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who then assigned the matter to co-ordinate Magistrate to deal with.”
The Bench firmly deprecated the attempt to settle heinous criminal accusations through private financial or out-of-court compromises.
“It appears that during the pendency of the criminal case before the Fast Track Court, Jammu, the petitioner and the victim/complainant have made some bargain to dilute the case, as if an accusation of the nature, as made by the complainant/victim, against an accused is a matter of earning a dole and then approaching the High Court for the quashment of criminal case, otherwise put up for trial against the petitioner. In this regard, a notarised agreement dated 12.08.2026 in which the complainant/victim citing her age as 24 years is purported to be agreeing to condone the alleged criminal offences inflicted upon her person. The complainant/victim is nobody to give an accused person such a pass and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the compromise deed dated 12.08.2026, which cannot be taken to be on account of a free and uninfluenced act on the part of the complainant/victim,” Justice Bharti held.
Observing that the Court must ascertain whether the victim has already deposed as a prosecutrix during the trial, the Bench directed the Registrar Judicial, Jammu, to requisition the scanned record from the Fast Track Court, Jammu, through special notice before proceeding further.
The High Court has listed the petition for continuation on September 11, 2026.
Advocates Mehtab Gulzar and Murtaza Badana appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, and Advocate Rahouf Khan appeared for the respondents. (KDC)
