Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(J&K) 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
Rahul Kumar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
UT of J&K & Anr. – Respondents
CRM(M) No. 501 Of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Karan Sharma.
For the Respondents: Pawan Dev Singh, Sahil Bhardwaj.

The court clarified the distinction between inquest proceedings and investigation of cognizable offences, emphasizing that the registration of a case for investigation can be justified even during the pendency of inquest proceedings.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure - 304-B, 498-A, 306, 147, 109, 201 & 120-B of IPC - 174 Cr.P.C - Investigation and Inquest Proceedings
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash the order directing the registration of a case against them for alleged offences under various sections of the IPC. They argued that the allegations were baseless and lacked evidence, and that the order to register the case was a subversion of the process of law.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences and directed investigation, finding no abuse of process by the learned Magistrate.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order to register the case against the petitioners was sustainable, considering the pendency of inquest proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the scope of inquest proceedings is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, distinct from the investigation of a cognizable offence. It held that the order to register the case for investigation was justified, even during the pendency of inquest proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit or substance in the petitioners' arguments.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 01.04.2021 (for short 'impugned order') passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Addl. Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C, whereby, Learned Magistrate directed respondent No.1 (SHO Police Station Kanachak, Jammu) to register case against the petitioners for alleged commission of offences punishable u/ss 304-B, 498-A, 306, 147, 109, 201 & 120-B of IPC, who registered the case vide FIR No. 0054/2021 (for short 'impugned FIR') .

2. Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:-

a) The petitioner No. l is the husband of deceased Renu Bala, petitioner No.2 is the mother of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are the sisters of petitioner No.l, who are married, have never involved themselves with the commission of any offence as stated in impugned FIR No. 0054/2021. The deceased namely Renu Bala died on 04-10-2020 due to electrocution while cooking, at the time of unfortunate incident, only petitioner no.2 was present in the house, who is 57 years old lady, heart patient as well as bedridden, the petitioner No. l is a government employee, serving in the Army and was on duty and rest of the petitioners have been falsely implicated as petitioners no. 3 to 5 are married and are at their respective in-laws houses at the time of unfortunate incidence, immediately after the death, inquest proceedings have been initiated which are required to be taken to their logical conclusion.

b) That the father of the deceased moved an application to the concerned Police Station for registration of FIR and also moved an application before SSP Jammu on 23-03-2021, but when the police has not taken any step on their part to lodge FIR against the accused persons for the murder of Renu Devi, he filed an application in the Court and the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 01-04-2021 directed SHO P/S Kana Chak, Jammu under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to register the case and file the compliance report within 10 days after the receipt of the order. Pursuant to the directions of Learned Magistrate, FIR No. 0054 dated 18-04-2021 was registered against the petitioners.

c) That the registration of impugned FIR on the directions of Learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 01-04-2021 clearly amounts to subversion of process of law initiated to ascertain true facts and circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and also amounts to harassment to all the petitioners who were not even present in the house at the time of incident except petitioner no.2. The petitioner no. 1 is a government employee. FIR was registered on an application moved by the father of the deceased under section 156(3) Cr.P.C that too without letting the inquest proceedings to its logical conclusion and if FIR proceeded on then in that eventuality all the petitioners will suffer to such an extent which cannot be compensated later on by any means including loss of job of petitioner no. 1.

d) That the story as reported on the basis of which the FIR got registered is nothing but only to use law as a weapon against the petitioners with a motive to destroy the future of an innocent petitioners, more particularly the petitioner No.l. The petitioners are innocent and law abiding citizen, hold good faith in the eyes of law and are fully cooperating with the police till date.

3. Petitioners plead that the allegations made against them by the father of the deceased are false, frivolous, bogus and vexatious and lack in the material substance. The petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences, as they always respected the deceased and also showered love towards her and never made any dowry demand as alleged in an application under section 156(3) by the father of the deceased. The allegations leveled against the petitioners as reported in the impugned F.I.R are base