Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 297
Sr. No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 03.03.2025 Pronounced on: 30.04.2025 Suchet Singh and Ors. ...Petitioners Through :- Mr. J. P. Gandhi, Advocate v UT of J&K and Ors. ....Respondents Through :- Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash FIRs when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.
Headnote:The petitioners invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order of the trial court directing action on a complaint by the respondent. The court found the allegations of violence and theft against the petitioners to disclose cognizable offences, rejecting their claims of the FIR being a counterblast to civil disputes. The court emphasized the need for thorough examination of the complaint and affirmed that the determination regarding the FIR's validity is not for the High Court but should be resolved by the trial court. The petition was dismissed.
Result: 'The present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed along with connected CM(s).'
JUDGMENT
1. P etitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 [Cr.P.C., for short] for quashment of an order dated 08.08.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Forest Magistrate, Jammu [“the trial court”] in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on a complaint preferred by respondent No.3 and consequent FIR No. 39 dated 08.02.2020 lodged at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
2. An overview of the background facts is that respondent No. 3 preferred a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Jammu stating inter alia that after the demise of her husband on 09.02.2017, she was residing alone on the first floor of her house No. 195-AD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, raised by her deceased husband. It was alleged inter alia by the complainant that after the demise of her husband, her father-in-law- petitioner No. 1, in order to force her to vacate the portion of the house under her possession, brought the other petitioners/accused persons from Trikuta Nagar and all of them started torturing her. As a result, the parties, who happened to be close relatives were embroiled in multiple litigations.
3. It was alleged that on 25.06.2019, while she was out of town, the petitioners broke open the door of her house, broke the costly items lying there and stole spare parts of her vehicle, from the balcony. She approached Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, but no action was taken by the concerned.
4. It was further alleged by respondent no. 3-the complainant that on 14.07.2019 at around 8:30 p.m., when she returned home, after paying a visit to one her relatives, petitioners No. 5 and 6 started abusing her and when she objected, they became violent and started pushing and slapping her. At this, rest of the petitioners No. 1 to 4 also came to the spot. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 also started pushing and slapping her. Petitioner No. 1 caught hold her from her hair and dragged her. Petitioner No. 2 caught hold her from her arms and dress and pushed her out. Complainant went on to allege that petitioners struck her with a wooden stick on her head. She fell unconscious and was rescued by her driver, namely, Ajay. The petitioners, before leaving the place of occurrence, threatened to kill her. The complainant goes on to state that same day on 14.07.2019, she went to Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and narrated the whole episode. But no action was taken. She again went to the Police Station on the next day, i.e. 15.07.2019 to enquire about her complaint but she was told to come after a couple of days. However, Police got her MLC conducted. It is alleged by the complainant that she repeatedly went to the Police Station to enquire about the status of her complaint, but no FIR was registered till 19.07.2019. As a result, she approached, Superintendent of Police (South) by way of an application dated 20.07.2019, who vide his reference No. 11705/RdrSPSJ dated 20.07.2019 directed SHO, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar to take appropriate action under law against the petitioners, which was supplied to the concerned SHO on the same day, but, according to the complainant, despite the lapse of ten days no action was taken against them. The aforesaid circumstances compelled the complainant to approach the Court, in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the trial court vide impugned order dated 08.08.2019, directed Police Station, Gandhi Nagar to take necessary action under law and on receipt of the aforesaid order, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 354, 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
5. Petitioners have questioned the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that it has been lodged by respondent No. 3 as a counterblast to the two FIRs registered against her by petitioner No. 1 and that civil disputes pending between the parties have been given a cloak of criminal offences. According to the petitioners, the allegations made in the impugned FIR, taken at their face v
