HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRM(M) 16/2021

Gulshan Kumar

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, Advocate

Vs

Chanchala Devi

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. K. S. Parihar, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Through the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the

complaint filed against the petitioner under Sections 375, 366, 506, 420 IPC

pending before the Court of learned Munsiff (JMIC) Mahore, District Reasi and

also the quashing of order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Munsiff

(JMIC), Mahore whereby the learned Munsiff directed the SHO Police Station,

Chasana to register an FIR against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint.

2.

From the record it is evident that the respondent herein had filed a

complaint under Sections 375, 366, 506, 420 IPC before the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reasi and the same was transferred to learned Munsiff

(JMIC) Mahore and the learned Munsiff vide order dated 22.12.2020 forwarded

the said copy of the complaint to SHO Police Station, Chasana and directed the

SHO, Chasana to register an FIR in the case under the relevant Sections of law.

3.

The only issue raised before this Court is that the respondent has

not complied with the mandate of Priyanka Srivastava’s case and further that the

police had already conducted enquiry in which it was stated that no offence has

been made out.

Sr. No. 275

2

CRM(M) 16/2021

4.

Pursuant to the direction of this Court no FIR has been registered

till date regarding which the petitioner can raise any grievance before this Court.

Law is well settled in HDFC Securities Ltd. and others vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2017(1) SCC 640, in which Apex Court

has held as under:-

<It appears to us that the appellants approached the High

Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In

particular, the appellants challenged the order dated

04.01.2011

passed

by

the

learned

Magistrate

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants after summarizing

their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the

context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under

the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused

grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it

was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of

the process of law. However, it appears to us that this

order

under Section

156(3) of

Cr.P.C.

requiring

investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused

an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage,

requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in

our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only

after the investigation report is filed before the

Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the

High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in

this situation and held that filing of the petitions

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at this stage are nothing but

premature. Further, in our opinion, the High Court

correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers

of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be

sparingly used. In these circumstances, we do not find

that there is any flaw in the impugned order or any

3

CRM(M) 16/2021

illegality has been committed by the High Court in

dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the

High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed

by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The

appeal is dismissed.=

5.

As the FIR has not been registered, so the petitioner cannot throw

any challenge to the order dated 22.12.2020 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

6.

In view of this, the present