The court emphasized that a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by High Court unless it is shown that allegations and the material available on record do not constitute an offence against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners through the medium of this petition seek quashment of FIR No. 122/2013 dated 09.10.2013, registered with Police Station, Janipur against them on the complaint of respondent No.1, for commission of offences under Sections 341, 506 RPC read with Sections 4/25 of Indian Arms Act.

2. As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was lodged by complainant, respondent No. 1 with Police Station, Janipur, Jammu, alleging therein that accused-petitioners herein, who were notorious criminals of the area, have committed a number of heinous crimes and various FIRs have been registered against them in various police Stations of Jammu District; that they have created a scene of terror in the society at large and nobody has come forward for making statements against them as they apprehend that they will be eliminated at any point of time by the accused persons; that some people of the area approached the complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, for bringing the matter to the higher Police authorities, so that they can be saved from the accused persons, as such he brought the matter to the notice of the higher authorities, for initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners, which made them furious and they were in search of occasion to eliminate the complainant. It was further alleged that petitioners threatened the complainant that in case process is initiated against them, they would kill him and his family members; that on 08.10.2013 at about 4.30 PM, when the complainant was coming back from the Court and at upper Paloura Jammu, both the accused persons all of a sudden came there, restrained him and threatened him to eliminate by exhibiting a Toka. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law as the same has been lodged for wreaking vengeance; that impugned FIR is lodged only with an intention to pressurize the petitioners not to state anything against the accused including respondent No. 1, in a case pending before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and that the same has been registered in order to counter the challan pending against respondent No. 1 and others in the aforesaid court.

4. Pursuant to notice, respondent/complainant filed reply, asserting that petition is misconceived, false, frivolous and bundle of lies, there being not an iota of truth as they have concealed material facts that both the petitioners are notorious criminals operating gangs in whole of Jammu Division. Till the year 2013, as per information received from SSP, Jammu, in RTI Act application, petitioner No. 1 was accused in eleven (11) cases, registered at different Police Stations of Jammu District, involving serious offences of attempt to murder, have trespass, use of prohibited arms etc. whereas petitioner No. 2 was involved in the five cases registered for the commission of serious offences from the year 1999 to 2013. It has also been pleaded that petitioner No. 1, Sohan Singh @ Sonu has also been detained by the District Magistrate Jammu under Police Safety Act, 1978, bases on his involvement in eight criminal cases, on 23.01.2021, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘Public Order’.

5. Respondent-State, pleaded that during the course of investigation iron toka had been recovered, on the disclosure of petitioner No. 2, Dalbir Singh @ Jagga and on the basis of the evidence/statement of evidence, the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/506/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act have been proved against both the petitioners/accused Sohan Singh @ Sonu and Dalbir Singh @ Jagga and investigation has been concluded into chargesheet. It was prayed that the petition, being misconceived, be dismissed and investigating agency be permitted to file the charge sheet before the court of law.

6. Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counse