The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers to quash criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the present case was a fit case for exercising such powers.

JUDGMENT :

1. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Code’), petitioners seek quashment of the FIR No. 0098/2020 dated 24.09.2020 registered against them in Police Station Billawar (Kathua) for commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 147, 427, 452 r/w section 34 IPC on the following grounds:

(i) that FIR bearing No. 0098/2020 for commission of offences under Sections 323, 147, 427, 452, 34 IPC has been lodged against the petitioners as a counter blast to the FIR No. 97 u/ss 336, 323, 147, 201 IPC lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2 on account of the attack and injuries suffered by the petitioners;

(ii) that a bare look at the FIR impugned bearing No. 0098/2020 would elucidate that the alleged occurrence had happened at 10:00 pm in front of the residence of the respondent No.2, whereas, the fact remains that in the FIR No. 97 registered at the behest of the petitioners wherein they have sustained injuries, the time of occurrence has been mentioned at 09:30 pm which is much prior to the time as is mentioned in impugned FIR, further from the complaint of the respondents whereupon impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioners, and that of the FIR against the respondent No.2, one conclusion can be safely arrived at is that even respondent No.2 has been in agreement that there has been dislodging or the cutting of the water pipes of the petitioners at the hands of the respondent No.2 which thus became the root cause of the occurrence as is alleged by the petitioners;

(iii) that FIR bearing No. 0097/2020 has been registered by the police on 23.09.2020 upon the basis of the statement of petitioners recorded in the hospital by the police itself, whereas respondent No.2 has himself gone to the police on 24.09.2020 to get impugned FIR No. 98/2020 registered and that too with written application, the contents whereof are such which cannot be expected of a rustic villager to be penned and the conduct of the respondent No.2 is such which renders that whole of his case is improbable and liable to be quashed which has been registered only as a counterblast to the FIR registered by the petitioners;

(iv) that impugned FIR No. 98/2020 registered at the behest of the respondent No.2 finds mention that the petitioners have wrongfully trespassed into the house of the respondent No.2, whereas, in the report submitted by the police in the bail application of the petitioners, offence under section 452 IPC has been converted into 451 IPC, further it has also been alleged in the complaint that son of the complainant has suffered fracture, which is apparently wrong and incorrect fact, again respondent No.2 has mentioned in the complaint that there has been use of Toka, hockey and lathis on the part of the petitioners which averments have also been proved incorrect and also no injury were reported by the respondent No.2, whereas, in the later part of the FIR it is mentioned that the police came on spot and shifted the injured to the hospital including the respondent No.2 and they are in critical condition, all these facts goes to prove that the allegations and averments made in the complaint based upon the FIR impugned is registered is nothing but bundle of mala fides, as such are required to be quashed;

(v) that police machinery has failed to conduct the investigation of the case in fair and impartial manner and has bothered least to text itself in terms of conducting the investigation to elucidate the fact and truth out of matters under investigation before them, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are absolutely false and baseless and therefore same be quashed on the ground of mala fides, the police have even gone to the extent of fudging, managing and manipulating the record and medical record of the case to give undue benefit and favour to the respondent No.2, in order to give undue advant