Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Ishtiaq Ahmed and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors. - Respondent
CRM (M) 382/2020 and Crl. M. No. 1422/2020
Decided On : 29-12-2020
For the Appellant :F.S. Butt, Advocate
For the Respondents:A.M. Malik, Dy. AG and S.H. Rather, Advocates
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 482 and 161 – Ranbir Penal Code,1932 – Sections 451,354,294,341,323,147,504,109,307,453,382,447,147 and 148 - Seeking quashment of FIR - It is the case of petitioners that prior to lodging of impugned FIR by respondent against them, FIR for offences under Sections 307/453/382/447/147/148 RPC was lodged by petitioner against respondent and her associates who happen to be neighbourers and relatives of petitioners - It is averred that petitioners and complainant party have a long standing property dispute and on account of this dispute, respondent and her associates launched an attack upon petitioners thereby causing serious injuries to some of them and damage to their property - On this basis, FIR was registered - Charge sheet in pursuance of aforesaid FIR is stated to be pending against complainant party before Court of learned Sessions Judge - It is alleged that, as a counter blast to this FIR, impugned FIR came to be lodged by complainant party against petitioners which is absolutely false and frivolous - Through medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR for offences under Sections 451/354/294/341/323/147/504/109 RPC registered with Police Station – Held, according to the impugned FIR, assailants happen to be petitioners herein, whereas according to FIR lodged by petitioners, assailants happen to be respondent and her associate - There are two different versions of same occurrence given by the rival parties - In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore, lodging of impugned FIR by respondent by giving her version of the occurrence is not impermissible in law - In the case before Supreme Court, there was an enquiry report, according to which, allegations levelled by complainant against accused was found to be unsubstantiated - It is, on basis of the said enquiry report, coupled with long standing enmity between the parties that Supreme Court held that where the proceedings are maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the accused due to private and personal grudge, the same deserve to be quashed - However, the facts of the instant case are quite distinct, inasmuch as there is no such enquiry report before this Court and, in fact, investigation conducted so far discloses that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are substantiated - For the foregoing reasons, court do not find any merit in this petition - Same along with connected application is dismissed, accordingly – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR bearing No. 0110/2019 dated 15.06.2019 for offences under Sections 451/354/294/341/323/147/504/109 RPC registered with Police Station, Thanamandi, District Rajouri.
2. It is the case of petitioners that prior to lodging of impugned FIR by respondent No. 2 against them, FIR bearing No. 0096/2019 for offences under Sections 307/453/382/447/147/148 RPC was lodged by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 2 and her associates who happen to be the neighbourers and relatives of the petitioners. It is averred that the petitioners and the complainant party have a long standing property dispute and on account of this dispute, on 02.06.2019 at about 5:00 pm, respondent No. 2 and her associates launched an attack upon the petitioners thereby causing serious injuries to some of them and damage to their property. On this basis, FIR bearing No. 0096/2019 was registered. A chargesheet in pursuance of aforesaid FIR is stated to be pending against the complainant party before the Court of learned Sessions Judge Rajouri. It is alleged that, as a counter blast to this FIR, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by the complainant party against the petitioners which is absolutely false and frivolous.
3. Respondent No. 1, SHO Police Station, Thanamandi has filed a status report in which it has been stated that, on 02.06.2019, a written application of respondent No. 2 was received by the police, that had been endorsed to the police by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kotranka, and on the basis of the said complaint, impugned FIR came to be registered. It is averred that during investigation of the case, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and it was found that the offences under Sections 341/354/294/323/147/504 RPC stand established against the petitioners herein. Respondent No. 1 has also produced xerox copy of the case diary.
4. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 has also filed her reply to the petition in which she has reiterated the allegations made by her in the impugned FIR against the petitioners, according to which, on 02.06.2019 at about 5:00 pm, the complainant/respondent No. 2, while on way to her home, was wrongfully restrained by the petitioners No. 1 & 2, who caught hold of her breasts to outrage her modesty, whereas the other petitioners launched an attack upon the complainant/respondent No. 2, her brother and mother with axes and lathies. It has been further averred that after investigation of the case, the offences mentioned in the impugned FIR stand established against the petitioners, as such, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners against the complainant party. According to the learned counsel, a chargesheet arising out of the aforesaid FIR stands already produced before the Court and on account of a long standing property dispute, the complainant party has lodged the impugned FIR with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. The learned counsel would contend that in the case of State of Haryana and ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors., 1992 AIR 604, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that in a case where the prosecution has also been launched only with an intention to wreak vengeance against the accused, the same deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmad Ali Quraishi and ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and ors, AIR 2020 SC 788.
7. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the instant case, two FIRs with regard to same occurrence have been registered by respondent No. 1, which is impermissible in law. In this r
