Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(J&K) 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, J.

Anil Gupta and another – Appellant
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and another - Respondent
CRM(M) No. 646 OF 2023 c/w CRM(M) No. 710 OF 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy.AG, Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv.

FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC when cognizable offences are disclosed; failure to comply with procedural requirements invalidates the FIR.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154(1), 154(3), 156(3) - Criminal complaint - Petitioners challenged the revisional court's order directing FIR registration against them based on allegations of illegal confinement and coercion - The trial magistrate dismissed the complaint citing non-compliance with procedural requirements - The revisional court allowed the complaint, leading to the petitioners' challenge - The court held that the complainant failed to adhere to mandatory provisions of sections 154(1) and 154(3) - The FIR was quashed as it was a consequence of an order not in accordance with law. (Paras 1, 8, 22, 32)

(B) Criminal Procedure - FIR registration - The Supreme Court mandates that FIR registration is obligatory when cognizable offences are disclosed, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible - The court emphasized that the magistrate must ensure compliance with procedural requirements before directing FIR registration. (Paras 15, 23)

(C) Criminal proceedings - The court noted that the allegations made by the complainant appeared to be a counterblast to the criminal complaints filed against him, indicating mala fides. (Paras 28, 30)

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners through the medium of petition bearing CRM(M) No. 646/2023 have challenged order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the revisional court), whereby, a revision petition filed against order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Excise Magistrate, Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the Trial Magistrate), has been allowed and the SHO Police Station, Channi Himmat, Jammu has been directed to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners.

2. It appears that a complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 120-B, 193, 195/408, 196, 209, 211, 323, 327, 330, 342, 347, 348, 352, 357, 384, 385, 386, 387, 392, 394, 403, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 500, 504 and 506 read with section 34 IPC was filed by respondent No. 2 before the learned Special Excise Magistrate, Jammu.

3. Briefly stated, the allegations made in the said complaint are that on 19.05.2022 at about 11 AM when respondent No. 2/complainant had gone to his office, the petitioners yelled at him calling him a thief and they alleged that the complainant had misappropriated funds of the firm. It was alleged that the complainant was over powered by the petitioners as well as other employees of the firm and he was dragged into a room where he was wrongfully confined and brutally beaten by them. It was conveyed to the complainant that he along with two more employees, namely, Ankush Sharma and Surinder Kumar had misappropriated the funds of the firm from June 2020 onwards and that the other two employees had already admitted their guilt and refunded the money. It was pleaded by the complainant that he had not done anything wrong but the petitioners did not listen to him. He was coerced into signing certain documents by putting his life and limb under serious threat. He was also told to get an amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs or else he would not be let off.

4. It was further alleged that father in law of the complainant came on spot to get him released from illegal confinement and his family members also got worried about his safety, whereafter his elder sister went to Police Station, Channi Himmat to make a complaint in respect of the incident. It was alleged in the complaint that the Incharge of the said Police Station informed petitioner No. 1 about the complaint lodged by the sister of the complainant but because of the influence of the petitioners, the Police did not act.

5. At about 3-4 PM on the same day, the father in law of the complainant, Rajinder Singh and his brother in law Rakesh Singh came to the premises where the complainant had been kept in illegal confinement. His wife Laxhmi Devi and his sons, two sisters and brother in law also came over there, but they were not allowed to enter the building. It was further alleged that thereafter the petitioners illegally confined father in law of the complainant and asked the complainant to go with his brother in law along with two employees of the petitioners to the house of father in law of the complainant at Kala Gate and bring back two vehicles which were lying over there. The registration of one of the vehicles is stated to be JK14H 5666 whereas the registration of other vehicle is stated to be JK14H 8304. The first one is stated to be registered in the name of his brother in law, Rakesh Singh, whereas the second one is stated to be registered in the name of Laxhmi Devi, the wife of the complainant. Both these vehicles were brought along with documents to the office of the petitioners at about 5.30 PM and these vehicles were retained by the petitioners in an illegal manner for ensuring the arrangement of money by the complainant.

6. It was further alleged in the complainant that at about 6 PM on the same day, the petitioners allowed father in law of the complainant to go with his other family members but the complainant was taken into custody and was made to sign two blank cheques