IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Filing of complaint by the complainant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam, is a sheer abuse of process of law.
(2) Very basis of assuming jurisdiction in the matter, i.e., taking of formal cognizance is totally missing.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J.—The petitioners have invoked inherent powers of this Court vested by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashment of the criminal complaint entitled “Rekha Wangnoo vs. Umesh Sharma and others” as also orders dated 14th of December, 2015, and 20th of April, 2017, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam (“the Trial Magistrate” for short).

2. Briefly put, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondent herein, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the complainant, filed a complaint before the Trial Magistrate against the petitioners for commission offences under Section 193, 199, 209, 463, 464, 466, 469 and 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code for some alleged forgery committed with the Court. As per the complaint, the petitioners are related to each other. The daughter of petitioner No.3, namely, Preeti Sharma, is married to one Rajesh Qazi, brother of the complainant. Owing to strained relations and matrimonial dispute between the two, there is litigation pending in different courts at Ghaziabad, Jammu and Srinagar.

3. It is alleged that in the dispute between husband and wife, the petitioners along with the couple have also involved the complainant in ruinous litigation. It is further claimed that the complainant too has filed an FIR in Police Station Women Cell, Srinagar, as well as a criminal complaint before the Court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, took cognizance of the offences under Section 323, 341, 354, 392 and 506 RPC, which order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners in a 561-A Cr. P. C petition bearing No.143/2011 filed before this Court. It is pleaded that the aforesaid quashment petition was dismissed by this Court.

4. After facing dismissal of their petition, the petitioners filed a criminal transfer application bearing No.15/2012 before the Jammu wing of this Court seeking transfer of the complaint from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, to a Court at Jammu. The criminal transfer application too was dismissed by this Court on 04.09.2012. It is alleged that in the criminal transfer application filed before the Jammu wing of this Court, the petitioners urged incorrect and false assertions and one of the false assertions was that a compromise had been arrived between the parties in Allahabad. There are further allegations in the complaint that the petitioners had sworn in false affidavit before the Jammu wing of this Court and also made wrong statements before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.9692-9693 of 2012 etc. etc.

5. On these factual assertions and allegations, the complainant filed a written complaint before the Trial Magistrate. The Trial Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint, found that the offences alleged in the complaint were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and, accordingly, committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, vide impugned order dated 14th of December, 2015. However, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, vide its order dated 10.02.2017 set aside the order dated 14th of December, 2015 to the extent of committal and remanded the case back to the learned Trial Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. The case, on remand, was received by the Trial Magistrate on 1st of April, 2017, on which date there was no appearance by the parties and, accordingly, the same was posted on 20th of April, 2017. On 20th of April, 2017, the Trial Magistrate, after recording presence of the complainant and her counsel, issued summons to the petitioners herein. It is this order of summoning as also the initial order passed by the Trial Magistrate on 14th of December, 2015, which are assailed by the petitioners in this petition.

6. The impugned orders have been assailed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(i) That the offences alleged in the complaint cannot be taken cognizance by the Trial Magis