The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Quashment of Charge-Sheet titled as UT of J&K v. Nagraj V. and others, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, as well as FIR no.77/2024 registered in police station Anantnag under Section 420 IPC is sought in the instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) of 2023.

2. The case set up by petitioner is that he is a Member of Bhartiya Janta Party and is also an entrepreneur. He had contested Assembly Election in the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 2016 on the ticket of said party. It is also the case of petitioner that respondent No. 2 is a Government Official and is serving as a Major in Army and is posted in Khanabal area of District Anantnag. It is also stated by petitioner that respondent No.2 approached petitioner through his friend, who happens to be a Parliament Director, in the first week of August 2023 in New Delhi and subsequently kept on insisting the petitioner to visit Kashmir as respondent no.2 was posted in Anantnag. Petitioner came to Kashmir and since Amarnath Yatra was going on, he performed Holy Amarnath Yatra. Respondent No. 2 informed petitioner that he enjoys good standing in Anantnag District, in fact in the entire valley. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner that he can help petitioner in investing in Pahalgam area, which is a tourist spot.

3. It is also assertion of petitioner that respondent no.2 in fact told him that he knew various businessmen and land owners in Kashmir who would offer land to petitioner at reasonable rates because of influence of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 wanted petitioner to invest money here and wanted to collaborate with petitioner for business purposes. Petitioner avoided to invest in the Kashmir. Subsequently, respondent No.2 came to Chennai and wanted to invest in production house of petitioner. Respondent No.2 was also time and again requesting petitioner for unreasonable favours. After repeated requests and offers, the petitioner accepted the proposal of respondent No.2, when Respondent No. 2 visited petitioner in Chennai around last week of October 2023.

4. It is also submission of petitioner that as per arrangement, respondent no.2 had to invest Rs.2.00 crores in the film production for which respondent No.2 was assured by petitioner that he would get 20% profit from the earnings of film production. The money was being paid to the artists including Mr. Samudra Kuni, who is a known actor/film star in the South Indian Film Industry. Petitioner requested respondent No.2 for entering into a formal agreement with him but Respondent No.2 refused the same citing the reason that he is a government official and cannot officially do business as he will lose his job. Petitioner also states that he also did not press upon signing of any agreement as respondent No.2 assured that there would be no problem from his end. Respondent No.2 said that he would be wanting his share in the profits in cash to which the petitioner did not agree. Subsequently, after initial investment of Rs.76.00 Lacs, respondent No.2 refused to invest further in film-production and was pestering petitioner for return of investment made. Respondent No.2 visited petitioner in New Delhi at his rental accommodation in Defence Colony. Respondent No.2 along with certain other people, whom petitioner did not know, forced him to give blank cheques to him. Petitioner will be in a position to produce more details regarding said transaction, once he is bailed out. In fact, during this period, one song was also produced and directed by petitioner and the same is also available in Hindi version online on YouTube having more than one million views. Petitioner thereafter assured respondent that petitioner would return basic investment, i.e., Rs.76.00 Lacs minus the loss which petitioner had suffered due to acts of respondent no.2, which irked respondent no.2, who was demanding crores of rupees