CRMC No. 144/2019 Page 1 of 3

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 144/2019

IA No. 01/2019

Date of order: 19.03.2019

Ghulam Hussain vs. State of J&K and others

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rashid Ali Dar, Judge

Appearing counsel:

For petitioner (s)

: Mr. K. K. Razdan, Adv.

For respondent(s) :

In terms of the instant petition, prayer is made for quashing the FIR

No. 23/2019 registered with Police Station, Kandi under sections 452 and

354-B RPC.

The grounds taken in the petition are that in view of the earlier

petition bearing OWP No. 199/2019 filed by the son of the petitioner,

namely, Liquit Hussain who was married with Ruksana Akhter, daughter

of respondent No. 3 out of their free will, this Court directed the official

respondents for the safety of the son and daughter in law of the petitioner.

Now respondent No. 3 has filed the impugned FIR (supra). It is stated that

the said FIR lodged against the petitioner appears to be false, fabricated

and outcome of share vengeance as there was no scope for registration of

the impugned FIR. According to the petitioner, the place of occurrence

mentioned in the impugned FIR is fictitious and same can be inferred from

the documents placed on record including the duty slip of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same grounds

as are taken in the petition for quashment of the impugned FIR. In my

CRMC No. 144/2019 Page 2 of 3

opinion, the factual matrix of this petition cannot be made the basis for

quashment. Investigating Agency has a statutory power to probe the

questions of fact forming the subject matter of the impugned FIR and this

Court cannot scuffle at its infancy.

It is trite that the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be

exercised sparingly. Inherent jurisdiction cannot become a substitute for

the powers of a trial court. It would be none of the duties of the High

Court to appreciate the merits of the version put forth in FIR or counter

version herein and to conclude the same is not sufficient to allow the

investigation. In my opinion the grounds as taken by the petitioner in the

instant petition for quashment of the impugned FIR are not thus good

enough to invoke inherent jurisdiction.

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo,

reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, has sounded a note of caution regarding

the power of High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-A Cr. PC,

corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their lordships enunciated

that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally

refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts

are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been

collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether

factual or legal, being of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true

perspective without sufficient material before the Court. While exercising

inherent jurisdiction as observed their lordships is not permissible for the

Court to act as if it was a trial Court. It would be none of the duties of the

High Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material

produced are sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty.

Petition merits dismissal and is dismissed.

CRMC No. 144/2019 Page 3 of 3

Dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the p