Possession under a court order must be respected, and police should seek clarification when faced with conflicting orders to avoid abuse of process.

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 67/2021 for offences under section 147, 188, 341 and 353 IPC registered with Police Station, Khrew Awantipora.

2. As per the impugned FIR, on 14.09.2021, police personnel of Police Station, Khrew, proceeded to the residential house situated at Wuyan Pampore for implementing the order passed by Sub-Judge, Pulwama. When the said order was read out to petitioner No. 5, Sweety Rashid, who had forcibly entered into the house of Bilal Ahmad Ganai (respondent No. 2 herein), along with her children, she along with her relatives, the other petitioners, attacked the police party. It is alleged that the petitioners also raised slogans against the policy party and prevented them from discharging their official functions. The petitioners are also alleged to have used abusive language against the police. On the basis of these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered by the police and the investigation was set into motion.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that pursuant to order dated 29.04.2021 read with order dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam, petitioner No. 5 was put in possession of the property, which is subject matter of the impugned FIR, by Child Development Officer, Pampore, who had been appointed as a Protection Officer in terms of the provisions contained in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, therefore, it was not open to the police party to dispossess the petitioner No. 5 from the property in question. It has been further contended that the impugned FIR has been registered in disregard of the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam. It has also been contended that another order was passed by learned Sub-Judge, Pulwama, on 14.09.2021 in a suit filed by respondent No. 5 against Bilal Ahmad Ganai (respondent No. 2), whereby possession of petitioner No. 4 over the property in question was protected. Thus, according to the petitioners, the impugned FIR could not have been lodged against them as they were in possession of the property in question under the shield and cover of a court order.

4. The respondent-State, in its reply, has, after narrating the contents of the impugned FIR, submitted that during investigation of the case statements of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr. P. C were recorded and it was found that the petitioners refused to obey the order of the civil court and started rioting against the police which led to registration of the impugned FIR.

5. The private respondents, in their reply to the petition, have submitted that order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam, has been set aside by this Court in terms of judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in CM(M) No. 142/2021. It has been submitted that the house in question is owned by respondent No. 3 and the petitioners have caused wrongful interference in the said house which constrained her to file a civil suit in the court of Munsiff, Pulwama. In the said suit an order came to be passed on 24.08.2020, whereby the petitioners were directed to desist from causing any wrongful interference with the possession of respondent No. 3 herein but despite the said order, the petitioners caused interference with the possession of respondent No. 3, as a result of which she was again compelled to approach the Court of Munsiff, Pulwama. Another order came to be passed by the Civil Court on 02.09.2020, whereby Police Station, Khrew, was directed to implement order dated 24.08.2020. While implementing the aforesaid order, petitioner No. 5 and other petitioners prevented the police from performing their lawful duties, which resulted in registration of FIR No. 50/2020 for offence under section 353 IPC.

6. According to the private respondents, another order came to be passed by Munsiff, Pulwama, on 14.09.2021, whereby yet another direction was passed for implementation of order dated 24.08.2020 and w