SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(J&K) 337

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
(Through Video Conference from residence in Jammu)
Saleem Ahmed and others
Versus
State of J&K
Cr. MC No. 725/2018 IA No. 1/2018 c/w BA No. 195/2018 IA No. 1/2018
Decided on 22-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Waheed Choudhary, Advocate (on video call )
For the Respondent: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG (on video call)

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - section 156(3) - FIR - Quash - Families of both complainant and made efforts to search both - Both persons were found in nearby vicinity families and or residents of area convened meeting and resolved issue amicably whereby families of both boy and girl have sworn in affidavits that would not lodge any criminal case against each - It is fur pleaded that complainant on being guided by person having vested interest to extract money from petitioners filed an application under section Code of Criminal Procedure before court of Sub Judge alleging rein that in night intervening of September daughter of complainant was kidnapped by with connivance of as many as ten or persons – Held, Bare perusal of FIR would reveal that re are specific allegations made against petitioners for which FIR has been registered and during investigation Investigating Officer has also established commission of offence sections RPC against petitioners - This Court cannot conduct mini trial in order to find out where offences against petitioners are made or not as same are to be established during course of trial - Allegations with regard to extraction of money are also vague and bereft of necessary particulars and as such do not deserve any consideration by this Court at this stage - Lastly senior counsel for petitioners made an attempt to persuade Court that complainant has not followed mandate supra before filing application Magistrate has passed order in mechanical manner - He further supplements his contention by stressing that petitioner had not approached SHO or SSP concerned before filing application before Magistrate - This Court find substance in objection raised by that said ground has no where been pleaded in petition - Perusal of petition would reveal that petitioners have nowhere laid down factual foundation in instant petition for adjudication of this ground and said ground cannot be termed as pure question of law that can be addressed without advertence to facts - A bare perusal of FIR reveals that complainant has annexed copy application filed by him with Police Station as well as affidavit along with his application filed section petitioners in ground petition have mentioned that complainant has managed lodging of FIR through Senior Superintendent of Police concerned - Petitioners have near placed on record any order passed by court of learned Magistrate section nor at any point of time have made any effort to get said order summoned that clearly shows that petitioners were never serious in challenging FIR on said ground - Or wise also perusal of FIR would fur reveal that police concerned has registered FIR after perusing contents of application and not on mere directions by Magistrate - Thus on this ground as well petitioners have no case at all for seeking quashing of FIR – Petition disposed

JUDGMENT

Cr. MC No. 725/2018, IA No. 1/2018

By the medium of this petition, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 218/2018 dated 29.09.2018 registered with Police Station Surankote for commission of offence under sections 363, 511 and 109 RPC against the petitioners. It is stated that one person, namely, Zaffar Iqbal was having love affair with the daughter of the complainant and she out of her free will went away with the said person in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of September, 2018.

2. The families of both the complainant and the Zaffar Iqbal made efforts to search both of them on 03.09.2018. Both these persons were found in the nearby vicinity. On 04.09.2018 both the families and other residents of the area convened a meeting and resolved the issue amicably whereby the families of both boy and girl have sworn in affidavits that they would not lodge any criminal case against each other. It is further pleaded that the complainant on being guided by person having vested interest to extract money from the petitioners, filed an application under section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the court of Sub Judge, Surankote on 20.09.2018 alleging therein that in the night intervening 2nd-3rd of September, 2018 the daughter of the complainant was kidnapped by Zaffer Iqbal with the connivance of as many as ten other persons. It was further alleged in the said application that on 12.09.2018 the persons arraigned as accused in the said application including the petitioners made an abortive attempt to again kidnap the daughter of the complainant but could not succeed. The matter was reported to the police on 13.09.2018 but no action was taken on it and accordingly, complainant invoked the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, Surankote on 20.09.2018 forwarded the said application to the SHO of Police Station, Surankote. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the respondents without conducting the preliminary investigation to verify the allegations as alleged in the complaint, in total arbitrary manner registered the FIR that is impugned in this petition. It is further stated that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the learned Sub Judge, Surankote on 10.10.2018. She has stated that in the night intervening 2nd-3rd of September, 2018 she was kidnapped by Zaffer Iqbal, Yaser Iqbal, Riaz Ahmed and Parvej Ahmed. She further alleged that she was taken in the Tata Sumo vehicle and was taken to a school where she had alleged to have been raped by Zaffer Iqbal and other persons were present. She further alleged in her statement that the petitioners herein were alleged to be speaking on phone with the persons present in the room.

3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds, firstly, that the FIR is liable to be quashed as the story projected in the FIR is in contrast to the statement made by the prosecutrix before the learned Magistrate under section 164-A Cr.P.C. Secondly, that the impugned FIR is bad in law inasmuch as it has been lodged after 20 days from the date of alleged occurrence i.e. in the night intervening 2nd-3rd September, 2018 and thirdly, that none of the ingredients of sections 363, 511 and 109 RPC are present and the involvement of the petitioners is only to extract money from the petitioners.

4. Respondents have filed the status report in which it is stated that on 20.09.2018 the complainant, namely, Mohd. Akram S/o Fazil Hussain had filed an application at Police Station, Surankote duly marked/endorsed by Sub Judge Surankote under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against one Zaffar Iqbal S/o Mohd Farooq, 2. Mohd Farooq S/o Munshi, 3. Parvaiz Ahmed S/o Abdul Majid, 4.Taseer Iqbal S/o Mohd Farooq, 5. Shoket Hussain S/o Mohd Rafiq, 6. Saleem Ahmed S/o Abdul Majid, 7. Shamim Akhter W/o Abdul Ghani, 8. Abdul Qayoom S/o Mohd Bashi, 9. Mohd Alam S/o Mir Hussain and 10. Rayaz Ahmed S/o Mohd Younis. The complainant and the all accused are residents of the same village.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top