The court emphasized the need for cautious and sparing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, and considered the specific categories of cases for quashing of FIR as outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

1. This petition seeks invoking of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing First Information Report (FIR) No. 15/2012 dated 14.01.2012 under section 363 RPC of Police Station, Akhnoor.

2. Heard. I have perused the record.

3. I may state, briefly, the facts emerging from the record produced by the petitioner, which are essential to dispose of this petition:

4. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 are husband and wife. They got married on 08.07.2003 and are blessed with a male child, Ruchir Tiwari. Their matrimonial life, however, remained disturbed inasmuch as respondent No. 3 had lodged an FIR under secs. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Sec.3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his family members at Police Station, Lanka, District, Varanasi (UP) which was registered as Crime No. 89/2009 dated 14.3.2009. However, at a later stage parties had arrived at a compromise. In April, 2011 petitioner, who is Major in Indian Army, was transferred to Akhnoor in J&K State. Respondent No. 3 along with their son joined the petitioner at Akhnoor. On 30.12.2011, petitioner filed application under section 100 of the Code in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Akhnoor. He alleged that on his return to Akhnoor after availing leave, he found his house locked from outside. Whereabouts of his wife and son were not known. On breaking open the locks of the house, he found that gold items and cash were also missing. He came to know that his father-in-law with the help of some goons has forcibly removed his wife and child and has confined both of them in his house at Varanasi. Petitioner, therefore, sought issuance of search warrant under section 100 of the Code for their search and producing them before the court. Learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing petitioner's counsel, issued search warrant directing SHO, Police Station, Akhnoor to search the house of the father (Chander Dev Pandey) of respondent No. 3, situate at Plot No. 36/37, Madhav Market, Colony Lanka, Varanasi (UP) and produce the respondent No. 3 and child, Ruchir Tiwari, in the Court on 21.01.2012.

5. Order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.01.2012, copy whereof has been produced by the petitioner, would show that the respondent No. 3 and the child were produced before the learned Magistrate on 12.01.2012 in compliance with the search warrant issued by him. As respondent No. 3 wanted to make her statement in presence of her father so the learned Magistrate kept them on sapurdari of one K. P. Dubey with a direction to appear on 14.01.2012 and posted the matter for 14.01.2012. Respondent No. 3 attended the court on 14.01.2012 but the petitioner did turn up. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.01.2012 (supra) read with FIR No. 15/2012 (supra) registered with Police Station, Akhnoor on 14.01.2012 would show that on 14.01.2012, respondent No. 3 had filed an application before the learned Magistrate alleging that on that day she along with her family members was sitting in the court room. Suddenly her husband (petitioner herein) and his two brothers, Krishan Kant Tiwari and Ajay Tiwari came there and forcibly removed the child, Ruchir Tiwari, from her lap and took him away by an Army Jeep to some unknown place. She, thus, alleged that the child has been kidnapped by the petitioner along with four army personnel. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to SHO, Police Station, Akhnoor with a direction "to register FIR against the accused and take strict necessary action under law". On this application FIR No. 15/2012 under section 363 RPC has been registered, which is sought to be quashed in this petition.

5. Petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations leveled by the respondent No. 3 are false, baseless and frivolous and do not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner even if the contentions in the FIR are taken at th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document