Criminal proceedings cannot be misused to resolve civil disputes; courts must ensure appropriate legal standards are met.

1. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, these were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

CRMC No. 129/2014

2. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated in the complaint titled “Abdul Salam Loan vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia” on 28.05.2012 under sections 417, 420, 406 RPC, pending before court below.

CRMC No. 128/2014

3. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated in the complaint, titled, “Mohd Ishaq Beigh vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia on 28.05.2012 under sections 417, 420, 406 RPC, pending before court below.

CRMC No. 127/2014

4. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated in the complaint titled “Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia” on 28.05.2012 under sections 417, 420, 406 RPC, pending before court below

CRMC No. 126/2014

5. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated in the complaint titled “Mohd. Iqbal Mir vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia” on 28.05.2012 under sections 417, 420, 406 RPC, pending before court below.

6. The facts in brief, in all the cases are almost the same, stating therein that the petitioner is dealing in fruit business at Ludhiana and the fruits were being purchased by the petitioner from different parts of the country from fruit growers and was having business dealing with the respondents, who are fruit growers at Ahmadabad Kulgam Kashmir and they used to supply the apples to the petitioner. It is contended that after taking amount in advance from the petitioner, the respondents became dishonest and did not dispatch fruits to the petitioner and the petitioner compelled the respondents to return the amount of advance, so received from him and the respondents in order to cause harassment to the petitioner and to avoid the payment so received by them to the petitioner, the respondents namely, Abdul Salam, Mohd. Ishaq Beigh, Mustaq Ahmed Mir and Mohd. Iqbal Mir, who are closely related, filed different complaints under Sections 417, 420 and 406 RPC before the Courts in Kashmir Valley.

7. The learned Magistrate in Kashmir took the cognizance in the matter and issued the process against the petitioner. It is further contended that respondents were harassing the petitioner under one pretext to another and had managed to file false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner; that the petitioner filed a Criminal Transfer Applications before this Court and this Court vide common order dated 18.04.2006 allowed the transfer applications and transferred all the complaints from the different Courts in Srinagar Valley to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred petitions under section 561-A Cr.P.C. bearing Nos. 53/2007, 52/2007, 54/2007 & 55/2007 and this Court vide common order dated 18.05.2012 sent back the complaints to the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the complaint for the purpose of issuing process or otherwise. It is further contended that from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, the complaints were transferred to the Court of learned 3^rd Addl. Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Jammu and the learned 3^rd Addl. Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Jammu vide order dated 28.05.2012 took cognizance in the matter and issued summons against the petitioner under Section 420 RPC.

8. It is f