Back
2024 Supreme(JK) 525
S. No. 120 Suppl. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAK H AT SRINAGA R CRM(M) No.372/202 4 NAHIDA PARVEE N ... Petitioner(s)
Through: -Mr. Waseem Ramzan Lone, Advocate and Mr. Alyas Ahmad, Advocate Vs.
MUNEER AHMAD KHA N …Respondent(s)
Through: -None CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDG E
The court ruled that the delay in filing a revision petition was unjustified and the underlying dispute was civil, not warranting criminal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) J&K Cr.P.C - Sections 195(1)(a), 538 B(1)(c) - Delay in filing revision petition - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of her revision petition on grounds of delay, asserting that she was unaware of the discharge order due to residing abroad - The court found the delay unjustified and the application for condonation lacking necessary particulars - The underlying dispute was deemed civil in nature, not warranting criminal proceedings. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Limitation - The court emphasized that the charge sheet was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed for the offences, thus justifying the dismissal of the case against the respondent. (Paras 9-10)
(C) Abuse of Process - The court ruled that the impugned orders did not result in an abuse of process or failure of justice, affirming the lower court's decisions. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against her brother regarding property disputes, leading to a FIR and subsequent discharge order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate due to limitations and civil nature of the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the revision petition, finding no merit in the claims of delay or the nature of the complaint.
Issues: The main issues included the justification for the delay in filing the revision petition and whether the complaint warranted criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the delay was not adequately explained and that the underlying dispute was civil, thus affirming the dismissal of the case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar in revision petition filed by her against order dated 10.04.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. Vide the impugned order, the revision petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same.
2. It appears that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Munsiff) Srinagar and the said complaint was endorsed by the learned Magistrate to Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar for investigation. In the said complaint the petitioner had claimed that there is a civil litigation going on between her and respondent No.1, who happens to be her brother, in respect of some landed property before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, in which an interim direction has been passed, whereby respondent No.1 has been directed not to encroach upon the suit property. It was further alleged in the complaint that respondent No.1, in violation of court order dated 25.05.2009, demolished the fencing wall of the suit property and collected construction material for raising illegal construction. It was also alleged that respondent No.1 is bent upon to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property and to create law and order problem.
3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint FIR No.221/2011 for offence under Section 188, 447 and 427 RPC was registered by Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar against respondent No.1 and investigation was set into motion, whereafter a challan came to be filed before the trial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar upon consideration of the charge sheet and after hearing the accused and the prosecution passed order dated 10.04.2017, whereby respondent No.1 was discharged and the case against him was dismissed. While passing the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar concluded that bar of limitation under Section 538 B(1)(c) of J&K Cr.P.C and bar to take the cognizance for offence in terms of Section 195(1)(a) of J&K Cr.P.C are attracted to the present case, as such, the proceedings against respondent No.1/accused are required to be stopped.
4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition before the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar. The revision petition, it seems, was filed on 17.08.2023 i.e after more than six years of passing of order of discharge by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. Alongwith revision petition, the petitioner also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application came to be dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned order dated 20.03.2024.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in filing the revision petition was occasioned due to the fact that the petitioner was residing in USA and that she had bonafide impression that her case was being pursued by the State. It has been further contended that the learned revisional Court while passing the impugned order has acted in a mechanical manner and has taken a very hyper technical view of the matter, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has also been contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to come to acquire knowledge of order dated 10.04.2017 made by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such, she had no occasion to file a revision petition against the said order.
7. If we have a look at the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the revisional Court, in the said application it has been pleaded that the petitioner after lodging the FIR against the accused person went to USA for medical treatment and due to Covid Lockdown she could not return. It has been further averred in the application that the petitioner w
