The court emphasized that the power to quash a complaint should be sparingly exercised and that the accused must face trial for acts constituting an offence.

1. Respondent, Neena Luthra, is the wife of petitioner No.1. Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 18.12.1987 but the same appears to have broken down. The parties have filed civil/criminal litigations in different courts against each other at Delhi as well as at Jammu. The wife-respondent also filed a complaint against the petitioner and his mother at Jammu. Petitioner No.1 filed a petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. in this court seeking quashment thereof in which the proceedings in the complaint have already been stayed. She has also filed a petition U/S 9 & 30 H.M. Act against petitioner No.1 whereas petitioner No.1 has filed a petition U/S 13 H. M. Act against respondent No.1 at Delhi. Respondent has also filed a petition u/s 488 Cr.P.C. which is pending disposal in the court of City Judge, JMIC Jammu. Petitioner No.1 has filed 2 civil suits against his wife-respondent in Delhi for challenging the sale deeds regarding sale of two flats situate in Delhi. Respondent-wife has now filed a complaint against the petitioners for commission of offences u/ss. 323,341,355,504 & 506 RPC.

2. The allegations made in the complaint stated briefly are that the petition of respondent-complaint filed U/S 9 HMA was fixed on 10.11.2003. On that date parties appeared before the court for the purpose of reconciliation. The case was taken up in the chambers by the learned District Judge (Matrimonial cases) Jammu. It is alleged that in presence of the Presiding Officer petitioner No.1 used unparliamentary language against the complaint and thereafter left the chamber of the Presiding Officer also. When the complainant came out of the court alongwith her counsel namely Shri Jagdish Parihar, petitioner-accused accompanied by petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) wrongfully restrained her in the corridor of the court and assaulted and abused her and threatened her that in case she does not withdraw her petition U/S 488 as well as petition U/S 498-IPC he would do away with her life. Learned 2nd Addl. Munsiff, JMIC by his order dated 12.11.2003 has taken cognizance and issued the process against the petitioners, hence the petitioners have filed this petition for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gupta, is that the complaint and the order of the learned Magistrate deserve to be quashed for securing the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. He has argued that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive of harassing the petitioners as the petitioners reside in Delhi and shall have to come to Jammu for attending the hearing of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners however has conceded at the Bar that the facts alleged in the complaint do prima facie constitute the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the trial court. The case thus put in short is that because the petitioners are residents of Delhi and number of cases have been filed by the parties against each other in different courts, ends of justice require that misery of the petitioners should not be further compounded by allowing the continuation of proceedings on the complaint of the respondent.

4. The petitioner is seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court vested U/S 561 A Cr.P.C. What is the scope of the section?

Section 561 A of the J&JK sic (J&K) Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to section 482 of the Central Cr.P.C.1983. The Supreme Court while examining the scope of the section in case titled M/S Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works vs Md.Sharaful Haque, reported in AIR(SCW) 2004 page 6185 held as follows:-

Exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document