The trial court exceeded its authority by directing the registration of an FIR for civil injunction violation, constituting an abuse of process.

JUDGEMENT

1. Inherent power enshrined under section 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of order dated 29.02.2024 (for short impugned order) passed by the court of Sub-Judge/JMIC Kupwara (for short the trial court) in case titled as “Ghulam Mohammad Lone Vs. Ghulam Mohi ud Din Lone and Ors.” as also FIR No. 10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered with Police Station Trehgam for commission of offences under sections 188, 427 and 447 IPC (for short impugned FIR).

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition reveal that the private respondent 3 herein filed a civil suit on 17.08.2015 against the defendants-petitioners herein before Sub-Judge Kupwara pertaining to an immoveable property wherein in the application for interim relief accompanying the said suit, the said court passed an interim order of status-quo on 03.09.2015 qua the suit property which order however, subsequently came to be modified on 31.10.2015 after the defendants petitioner herein in the suit appeared and filed written statements as well as objections to the application for interim relief and in terms of said modification order the defendants petitioners herein came to be permitted by the trial court to go ahead with the construction/repair of the house being part of the subject matter of the suit.

3. Aggrieved of the said order dated 31.10.2015, the plaintiff respondent 3 herein filed an appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kupwara which appeal came to be disposed on 07.06.2017 modifying the order dated 31.10.2015 by providing that the defendants petitioners herein can raise construction on the suit land in their possession covered under Survey No. 24 measuring 1 kanal, however, subject to an undertaking to be filed before the trial court to the extent that the said construction shall be raised at his own risk and in case plaintiff succeeds in the suit the defendants shall not claim any compensation thereto and will also remove and demolish any such construction.

4. Subsequent to the passing of the said order dated 07.06.2017 by the appellate Court the plaintiff/respondent herein filed an application before the trial court and sought a direction to the concerned police for lodgment of an FIR against the defendants-petitioners herein for having violated the order passed by the appellate court as also the order passed by the trial court whereunder the trial court had directed the concerned Police Station earlier to implement the order of the appellate court dated 07.06.2017, whereupon the trial court in terms of the impugned order 29.02.2024 directed respondent 2 herein to lodge an FIR against the defendants-petitioners herein for having violated orders passed by the court/s as a consequence whereof, impugned FIR came to be registered against the defendants-petitioners herein.

5. The petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order as also the impugned FIR primarily, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order as well as the impugned FIR has been passed and got registered against the petitioners herein arising out of a civil matter being contested by the petitioners herein and respondent 3 herein before the civil court pertaining to an immovable property and has been aimed at to convert the said civil dispute into a criminal one on baseless and misrepresented facts and that the impugned order as well as the impugned FIR do not constitute or make out any case against the petitioners so much so the ingredients of alleged offences covered in the impugned FIR do not exist.

6. Objections have been filed by the official respondents herein to the petition wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that upon a complaint filed by the respondent 3 herein along with court order passed by the court of Sub-Judge/JMIC, Kupwara, the FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioners and after undertaking investigation therein, the petitioners maintained the instant petition before this Court and the in