Srinagar, Jul 10: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that once a criminal court records a compromise, disposes of the complaint and acquits the accused, it ceases to have jurisdiction over the proceedings unless a specific statutory provision permits further action. A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said this while allowing one Gulzar Ahmad Ganaie’s plea whereby he had sought to quash execution proceedings initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Budgam, to enforce a compromise reached in a cheque dishonour case.
In his plea, Ganaie had assailed the CJM’s orders dated November 17, 2025, and May 6, 2026, with the contention that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings after the complaint had already been decided and he had been acquitted. The dispute arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into a compromise on July 26, 2024, under which Ganaie agreed to pay Rs 6.60 lakh to the complainant, while the complainant agreed to provide a patch of land to Ganaie. Acting on the settlement, the CJM dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.
Subsequently, alleging that the terms of the compromise had been violated, the complainant-initiated execution proceedings before the CJM. The CJM entertained the application and subsequently directed the complainant to furnish details of the petitioner’s properties for attachment. Assailing the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once the complaint had been disposed of and the accused acquitted, the criminal court had exhausted its jurisdiction and could not revive the matter by executing the settlement.
Before the High Court the question for consideration was whether, after recording the compromise between the parties and dismissing the complaint, the CJM retained jurisdiction to subsequently entertain execution proceedings and direct attachment of the petitioner’s property on the allegation that the terms of the settlement had not been complied with.
“Once parties voluntarily settle their dispute and place such settlement before the criminal court, it is open to the court to record the compromise and dispose of the complaint accordingly. Upon acceptance of the compromise and passing of a final order disposing of the complaint, the criminal proceedings attain finality,” the bench noted.
The court observed that the criminal proceedings stood concluded and the Magistrate became “functus officio”. Thereafter, the criminal court ceased to possess any continuing jurisdiction over the complaint, it observed. The bench further noted that although the compromise had been recorded, the final order neither incorporated the terms of the settlement into its operative portion nor directed that the agreed amount would be recoverable under Sections 421 and 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It held that coercive recovery mechanisms available under criminal procedure can be invoked only when there is an executable judicial direction and not merely because parties have entered into a private settlement. The bench observed that while a settlement creates independent contractual rights and obligations between the parties, any breach gives rise to a fresh cause of action and cannot be enforced through execution proceedings before a criminal court after the complaint has attained finality.
