The inherent power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly, focusing on whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not on the merits of the case.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners herein have invoked the inherent power of this Court enshrined under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.249/2021 registered with Police Station, Kulgam for offence under Sections147, 447, 354 IPC.

2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that respondent 2 herein filed application under Section 156(3) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulgam, against the petitioners herein, alleging herein that as a routine when she, along with other private respondents herein, visited her land for doing regular work on 28^th of November 2021 accused petitioners herein were found to have trespassed upon the said land and digging pits thereon illegally and upon being challenged, the accused petitioners gave merciless beating to them, dragged them on the ground and also outraged her modesty and that they only came to be saved by some passersby.

3. While maintaining the said application before the Magistrate, the complainants had also contended therein that before filing the same, they approached the concerned SHO for registration of a case against the accused petitioners who failed to take any action thereof compelling the complainants herein to file an application before the Magistrate.

4. The Magistrate, after entertaining the application and upon considering the same directed the concerned SHO to register a case against the accused petitioners whereafter the impugned FIR came to be registered for commission of offences under Sections 147, 447 and354 IPC with Police Station Kulgam.

5. The petitioners herein have challenged the impugned FIR in the instant petition on the premise that the allegations leveled in the impugned FIR by the complainants/respondents are baseless and that, in fact, in the month of November 2020, the petitioners were laying a slope on their pathway, connecting the main road to their residence in order to make their path motorable for their ingress and egress and that the respondents 2 to 5 herein however, without any reason and justification lodged the impugned FIR despite the fact that the allegations of trespass leveled against the petitioners herein by the complainants/respondents herein qua the land is Shamilt land /common land and not their proprietary land.

It is further stated that the impugned FIR has been got registered as a counter blast subsequent to the FIR of the petitioners herein being FIR No. 223/2020 for offences under Sections 452, 492, 506 and 354 IPC registered against them.

It is being next stated that the impugned FIR is bad in law, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the relevant provisions of law and that the impugned FIR, in fact, has arisen out of a civil dispute inter-se the parties having been converted by the private respondents into an criminal case in terms of impugned FIR and that the ingredients of alleged offence mentioned in the FIR are not made out against the petitioners.

6. Reply/Status–report to the petition has been filed by the official respondents wherein the registration of FIR pursuant to the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulgam is being admitted against the petitioners herein.

It is further stated that upon undertaking investigation of the FIR, site plan came to be prepared and statement of witnesses came to be recorded and during the course of investigation, one accused namely Ishrat Altaf referred in the FIR was found to be not involved in the commission of offences being not present on the date of occurrence.

It is next stated that during the course of investigation, revenue records were collected from the office of Executive Magistrate, 1^st Class Kulgam, whereunder the land in question was found to be neither belonging to the petitioners nor to the complainants/respondents herein resulting into dropping of offences under Section 447 IPC.

It is, however, lastly stated that upon conclusion of the investigation, offences under Sections 147, 354, 392, and 201 were found to have been committed by the petitioners and that the charge shee