Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Sheikh Nasser Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K and others – Respondents
CRMC No. 15 of 2014 IA No. 14 of 2014
Decided On : 28-07-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) and 482 - Ranbir Penal Code - Sections 448 and 427 - Seeking quash of criminal Challan - Petitioner claims to have purchased a plot of land by virtue of Sale Deed executed and thereafter mutation was also attested in his favour. Petitioner has also obtained permission for constructing residential plot from Jammu Municipal Corporation. The area where plot situated is now commonly known as Greater Kailash Lane - Further it is claimed that respondent No. 3 and his wife, started raising claim over plot of petitioner under garb of Sale Deed by virtue of which they claim that plot has been purchased by wife of respondent No. 3 falling under khasra - Further claimed that petitioner was given ‘nishandehi’ in view of claim o f wife of respondent No. 3. It is also stated in petition that wife of respondent No. 3 filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with regard to her plot against petitioner and others and learned City Judge, Jammu initially passed restraint order and subsequently, the same was modified and parties were directed to maintain status quo.
Finding of the court : It is evident that parties are litigating with regard to piece of land that the petitioner claims to have purchased vide Sale Deed falling under khasra whereas claim of respondent No. 3 is that said piece of land that has been purchased by his wife. Said dispute is pending before court of learned City Judge, Jammu. It was during pendency of said suit, as per the allegations of the complainant that boundary wall and the room and articles were damaged by petitioner - Respondent No. 3 being husband of purchaser of property has every right to look after and protect property of his wife and it cannot be said that respondent No. 3 is absolutely stranger and has got no locus standi to lodge FIR. Otherwise also FIR can be lodged by any person(s) who is aware about the commission of any cognizable offence.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal challan No. 71/2012, titled, State vs. Sheikh Nissar Ahmed arising of FIR bearing No. 15/2012 of Police Station, Gangyal for commission of offences under sections 448 and 427 RPC pending before the learned JMIC (Munsiff), Jammu and the criminal proceedings pursuant thereof.
2. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the following grounds :
(ii) That the respondent No. 3 through the medium of these criminal proceedings has tried to veil the civil suit with criminal nature as earlier the respondent No. 3 had filed a civil suit against the petitioner and his attorney and the other persons, that is pending before the court of learned City Judge Jammu and when the respondent No. 3 could not succeed in his nefarious designs to grab the property, he initiated the impugned criminal proceedings.
(iii) That the respondent No. 3 has no locus standi to lodge the FIR.
3. The response stands filed by the respondent No. 3 in which it is stated that wife of the respondent No. 3 was forced to file a suit against the petitioner with regard to her property and the learned City Judge initially passed the restraint order and subsequently when the petitioner approached the court, the order was modified and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The petitioner in order to grab the property of the wife of the respondent No. 3, trespassed into the plot of the land and broke the boundary wall, gate and room causing loss of 30,000/- and the petitioner approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for investigation of the matter and pursuant to that direction, FIR was registered and after the conclusion of the investigation, the challan for commission of offence under sections 448 and 427 RPC was filed against the petitioner and it is further submitted that false ground has been put forth by the petitioner with regard to his absence on the spot on the date of occurrence as he has manipulated the record being the Senior Officer of the Bank. It is also stated that the civil dispute though cannot be settled by criminal proceedings but it does not give license to the party to the civil proceedings to violate the law and forcibly commit trespass and cause damage to the property during the pendency of the civil litigation. It is also contention of the respondent No. 3 that in a contempt petition filed by the wife of the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for committing trespass and causing damage to the suit property, the petitioner has not stated in his response that he was in his office at Srinagar on 04.02.2012.
4. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the complaint filed by respondent No. 3, order passed by the learned CJM, Jammu under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, copy of the FIR, Copy of the challan, copy of the suit and written statements filed by the petitioner along with documents in support thereof and the respondent No. 3 has placed on record the objections filed by the petitioner in the contempt proceedings and also the petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner and other documents.
5. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a plot of land measuring 12 marlas comprising khasra No. 684 min situated at Sunjwa b
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
