The petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him and four others by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on a complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court. By order dated 16.10.98 the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process u/s 120-B, 447-A, 448, 454, 380 RPC against the petitioner whereas process u/s 406 and 409 RPC in addition to the above sections was issued against four others who are non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.

2. It is a peculiar case where the High Court had to file a criminal complaint against the officers including the Minister incharge of the Estate. Facts disclosed in the petitioner are that House No. 6 Wazarat Road, Jamu was placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice for being allotted to Judges from time to time. The house remained in possession of Mr. Justice B.A. Khan since 1990 till his lordship was transferred to Madhya Pradesh in the year 1997. After the house was vacated, it was occupied by his lordship Mr. Justice T.S. Doabia who shifted to House No. 2, Ved Mandir, New Plots in the months of June-July 1998. After this, the house remained in possession of the court officer of the High Court.

3. When on 13.10.1998 Shri Tariq Ahmed Buch, court officer visited the house, he found the lock broken. On enquiry he was informed by the persons occupying the same that the house is in possession of the petitioner whose family was staying there. It was further found by the court officer that the occupant damaged and misappropriated the costly items belonging to the High Court with criminal intention to cause harm and loss to the High Court after hatching a criminal conspiracy. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had put accused No. 1 in possessions of the house thereby dispossessing the High Court forcibly. According to the complainant certain items like Sofa sets, air conditioners, law books including telephone apparatus were lying in the house at the time Doabia J shifted to Ved Mandir. It was on the basis of these allegations that the process was issued under various sections.

4. The petitioner had earlier sought quashing of the proceedings u/s 561-A Cr. P.C. but the petition was dismissed by this Court judgement dated 27.5.99. This second petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the evidence produced by the complainant does not disclose commission of any offence and, therefore, proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the earlier petition, argument put forward was one that the court could not take cognizance in the absence of sanction u/s 197 Cr. P.C. and two that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. The first argument was rejected holding that it is no part of the official duty of a public servant to commit a trespass. Regarding the second, the court observed that "prima facie a perusal of the complaint and preliminary evidence on bare reading negative this plea, may be that after summoning of the petitioner and other alleged co-accused was in position to bring adequate material or dislodge the prosecution case during cross-examination, but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out."

5. The contention of Mr. Sethi is that statements of D.K. Kapoor and Mohd Tariq Buch do not disclose commission of any offence and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, Mr. Sethi appearing for the petitioner argued that foundation of the complaint was that house No. 6 had been placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice of the High Court, but no such order has been placed on the record. On the contrary, record of the High Court reveals that every house was allotted by the Estate Department to the individual Judges of the High Court. At no stage any of these houses much-less House No. 6 came to be placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice. In support of this, he has referred to the D.O. No. JKH/J/CJ/831/98 dated 28.1.1998 written by the then Chief Justice to the Minister. Admittedly, there was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document