A plea that an FIR represents a retaliatory counter-blast is a matter of defence involving disputed facts, which must be adjudicated during trial and cannot serve as grounds for the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in its inherent jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 323, 336, 341, 382, 427, 504 and 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Quashing of First Information Report - Contention that FIR was registered as a counter-blast to a previously filed complaint - Whether maintainable at this stage. (Para 1, 5)

(B) Quashing of Proceedings - Scope of inherent powers - Where a petition is filed seeking quashing of an FIR on the premise that it is a retaliatory measure meant to compel a compromise, the High Court determined that such contentions are matters of defence. These claims rest on disputed questions of fact that must be adjudicated by the trial court during the trial process rather than being addressed at the preliminary stage of quashing. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered under various penal sections, alleging that the case was initiated as a counter-blast to an earlier FIR filed against the complainant. The petitioners contended that the current FIR was lodged with the sole purpose of exerting pressure to force a settlement in the previously pending litigation. The investigation into the matter resulted in the exclusion of two individuals from the array of accused and the dropping of one specific penal charge.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation had already led to the removal of certain offences and specific individuals from the list of accused. Regarding the plea of the FIR being a counter-blast, the court held that such arguments essentially amount to a defence to be established through evidence during trial and cannot be appreciated at the stage of the petition for quashing.

Issues: Whether an FIR is liable to be quashed by the High Court on the contention that the criminal case was initiated solely as a retaliatory counter-blast to existing litigation between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A contention that an FIR is a counter-blast involves disputed questions of fact and constitutes a defence that must be considered by the trial court. It does not provide a valid legal basis for the High Court to pre-emptively quash criminal proceedings.

Result: Petition dismissed in respect of the remaining accused; disposed of as infructuous for those individuals against whom the investigation was dropped.

ORDER

ORAL

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 0029/2023 dated 17.02.2023 registered with Police Station, Surankote under Sections 382, 504, 506, 427, 336, 341, 323 and 147 IPC on the ground that the same was registered as a counter-blast to the FIR No. 0154/2022 dated 10.06.2022 registered with Police Station, Surankote for offences under Sections 341, 323, 147, 427 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act against 13 persons including respondent No. 4, who is figuring as accused No. 1 in the FIR No. 154/2022 at the instance of petitioner No. 4. It is further urged that the FIR impugned in this petition has been registered only for the purpose of pressurising the petitioners to enter into compromise with regard to FIR No. 154/2022.

2. Status report has been filed by the respondent No. 3, wherein it is stated the complainant, namely, Manzoor Hussain i.e. respondent No. 4 submitted a written application with Police Station, Surankote against Nassar Ahmed and six other accused, all residents of Dhara Mohra, Surankote, wherein it was stated that on 17.02.2023 at about 1600 hours when the complainant-Manzoor Hussain was coming after performing Friday prayers from Jamia Masjid, Bafliaz, all the accused persons i.e. petitioners herein restrained the complainant, abused him and assaulted him with kicks and blows and pelted stones on him. Further, they threatened him of dire consequences, however, the complainant somehow escaped from the clutches of the accused persons.

3. On receipt of this application, FIR impugned was registered and investigation was started. During investigation, offence under Section 382 IPC was not found to be established. Further, petitioner No. 5-Aftab Ahmed and petitioner No. 7-Mushraf were not found involved in the incident. Accordingly, Investigating Officer deleted their names from the array of accused and also deleted offence under Section 382 IPC. Further, Investigating Officer proved the offences under Sections 341, 323, 147, 427, 504 and 506 IPC against the petitioners other than petitioner Nos. 5 and 7.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The contention of the petitioners that the FIR impugned has been lodged as a counter-blast to the FIR No. 154/2022, registered at the instance of petitioner No. 4 against the respondent No. 4, cannot be appreciated at this stage, as it amounts to defence of the petitioners, which can be considered only during trial.

6. In view of above, the present petition along with the connected application is dismissed qua the petitioners other than petitioner Nos. 5 and 7. So far as petitioner Nos. 5 and 7 are concerned, the present petition along with the connected application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document