JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to „theCode’) for quashing the proceedings of a case pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Munsiff) Budgam. It is averred, that in the proceedings under Section 488 CrPC pending adjudication before the Magistrate in case titled „Romysa and another vs. Imran Khan, non applicant No. 2 being husband of said Romysa was in arrears of maintenance amount of Rs. 94000/-,counsel for the said applicant Romysa on 08.06.2016 called the said lady and her brother petitioner Abid Ahmad Tibetbaqal in his chamber and informed the said lady applicant that the counsel will move a transfer application of her case from the Court/Magistrate but before transferring the said case, the counsel would like to talk to her husband non-applicant No. 2/Imran Khan to which the said lady Romysa objected yet her counsel send for non-applicant No. 2/Imran Khan, and as soon as non-

applicant No. 2 entered the chamber of the counsel, non-applicant No. 2 started abusing the said lady and even manhandled her, whereby, her brother/petitioner objected to the said conduct of non-applicant No. 2, and then both non-applicant No. 2/Imran Khan and her counsel pushed both Romysa and her brother/petitioner above named Abid Ahmad Tibetbaqal out of the chamber. It is moreso averred, that the petitioner and his sister Romysa objected to the coercive and one sided compromise of waiving of arrears of Rs. 94000/- whereby non- applicant No. 2/Imran Khan husband of the said applicant/lady Romysa got annoyed and hit the petitioner ruthlessly and his sister, whereby right leg of the petitioner got surgically installed,therefore, the petitioner‟s sister went to Police Station Budgam and reported the incident and filed a written complaint,however respondent No. 2/Imran Khan (husband of the applicant Romysa) also submitted compliant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Budgam against the petitioner for robbery of amount of Rs. 15000/- which amount respondent No. 2 had with him to be paid to his wife the said Romysa. It is further averred, that on the written report of the said lady Romysa, FIR No. 122/2016 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354/323 RPC stood registered against the respondent No. 2/Imran Khan in Police Station Budgam, however, against the petitioner without therebeing any material to be charged for commission of offence under Section 392 RPC, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the SHO Police Station Budgam under Section 156(3) CrPC without following the due procedure of law. Prayer has been made for quashment/setting aside of the proceedings before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Munsiff) Budgam.

2. Status report/reply stands filed by respondent No. 1, wherein, it has been contended, that a case FIR No. 120/2016 under Section 392 IPC was registered in Police Station Budgam and during investigation I/O visited the spot, prepared site plan and recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, and after collecting the evidence, the offences under Section 392 IPC have been established against the petitioner/accused and finally the challan of the case has been produced before the Court of Magistrate on 30.10.2017 for judicial determination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused while seekingquashment/setting aside of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused pending before the Magistrate in case FIR No. 120/2016 for commission of offences under Section 392 IPC,has vehemently canvassed arguments, that before taking recourse to provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC the Magistrate was required to reflect in his order that prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC were filed by respondent No. 2 which were duly supported by an affidavit sworn. It is argued, that the Magistrate has directly forwarded the application/complaint of responde