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

2019 Supreme(J&K) 523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
Jai Kumar and Ors.
versus
State of J&K and Ors.
CRMC No.133/2018, IA No. 01/2018
Decided on 15.03.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Pawan Kumar Kundal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the court's authority and quash a proceeding that is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

Headnote:

Section 561-A - Quashment of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 447, 427, 336, 504, 506, 147 RPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and referred to various principles governing the exercise of this jurisdiction. It highlighted the categories of cases where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. The court also emphasized the need for the allegations in the FIR to disclose a cognizable offence and the importance of preventing abuse of the court's authority. The judgment relied on legal principles to quash the impugned FIR based on the mala fide nature of the complaint and the absence of specific allegations against the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashment of an FIR filed against them for offences under Sections 447, 427, 336, 504, 506, 147 RPC. They claimed ownership of the land and alleged that the FIR was a counter blast to a previous FIR they had lodged against the private respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.

Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the impugned FIR, the general nature of the allegations, and the absence of specific roles attributed to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the abuse of the court's authority and the mala fide nature of the impugned FIR, leading to its quashing.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR was quashed.

JUDGMENT

Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioners seek quashment of FIR No.19/2018 dated 03-03-2018 registered with Police Station, Gharota, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 447, 427, 336, 504, 506 and 147 RPC alongwith investigation conducted to involve the petitioners in a false and frivolous case.

2. Petitioners claim to be owner and in possession of the land measuring 16-Kanal falling under Khasra No.3706/2845 situated at Village Kote. The inheritance mutation of the same is attested in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 5. It is stated that the above said land is adjoining to the land of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. It is further stated that the private respondents have constructed a shop on their land; land of the petitioners is open and when petitioners wanted to fence the land, respondents started quarreling with them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on 19.02.2018 at about 10:00 to 10:30 AM, the petitioner No.1 was fencing his land, the private respondents and their servant kept in the shop entered in the field of the complainant and started hurling abusive languages and they attacked the petitioner No.1 and inflicted injuries on him with iron rod and threatened the petitioner No.1 that in case he came there again they would kill him. Due to the injuries caused with iron rod by Sanjeev Kumar and Sunil Kumar, bone of the left hand of the petitioner No.1 has been fractured. On 19th of February, 2018, the petitioner No.1 filed a complaint before the SHO Police Station Gharota itself and got treatment from Medical College/Hospital Jammu vide MLC No.4533 of 2018 dated 19th of Feb, 2018, and he was advised by the doctors for X-ray and after X-Ray it was found that the left hand of the petitioner No.1 has been fractured.

4. The SHO Police Station Gharota has neither taken any action against the accused nor FIR of the petitioner No.1 was registered against the accused persons. Thereafter, on 21.02.2018 petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed the SHO Police Station, Gharota to lodge FIR and investigate the matter under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Based on the said direction, the SHO Police Station Gharota registered an FIR No.16/2018 on 27.02.2018 for commission of offences under Sections 447/323 RPC.

5. It is further case of petitioners that after registration of FIR against the accused persons/private respondents; they prepared a false and frivolous case and on 03.03.2018 filed complaint before the 2nd Addl. Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu alleging therein that on 19.02.2018 the petitioners herein forcibly tried to encroach upon complainants’ land by erecting barbed wires Poles but due to interference of neighbourers, they could not succeed in their plans. On this complaint court directed the SHO to proceed with the matter under law and accordingly FIR impugned has been registered.

6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR No.19/2018 dated 03.03.2018, on the following grounds:-

(i) That the impugned FIR is lodged after much delay when FIR was registered against the private respondents by the petitioners. No such incident as alleged by the private respondents dt. 27-02-2018 took place.

(ii) That the allegations leveled in the complaint are general in nature and it has not been stated that which role played by which accused. So, allegations are general in nature and are leveled to satisfy the personal grudge

(iii) That the matter was purely a civil dispute but the respondent tried to give a criminal colour to the incident by false implicating the petitioners.

(iv) That wife of the Jai Kumar and Swarn Kumar are not living with them and are separated. The wife of the Swarn Kumar filed petition under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act for the last more than one year which is pending in the court of 3rd

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