1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.

P. C (482 Cr. P. C) seeks quashment of complaint titled as Khalil

Ahmed vs. Allah Dad Khan and Anr. (for short impugned complaint)

along with order dated 10-05-2018 (for short impugned order)

pending before the Court of JMIC Mendhar.

2. Facts in brief as stated in the petition would reveal that the

respondent herein filed the impugned complaint against the petitioner

alleging therein that the accused/petitioner herein during 28^th June,

2011, with common intention agreed for making a payment of Rs. 2

lacs and 4 thousand taken on credit from the complainant/respondent

herein by way of ten thousand installments per month at a formal

panchayat organized at Mendhar when police had seized the vehicle

bearing registration No. JK02AK-6956 on the complaint of the

complainant/respondent herein and that thereafter a formal

agreement was also executed between the accused person/petitioner

herein and the complainant/respondent herein and that the

accused/petitioner herein did not pay a single penny to the

complainant/respondent herein despite making of several requests to

the accused for payment of the same and instead the

accused/petitioner

herein

started

threatening

the

complainant/respondent herein of dire consequences of murder

IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 205/2019

CrlM No. 499/2019 (01/2019)

Reserved on: 19-05-2022

Pronounced on: 13-07-2022

Allah Dad Khan

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. A. K. Shan, Adv.

Vs.

Khalil Ahmed

...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Shamas ud Din Shaaz, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

besides abusing and accusing the complainant/respondent herein

with filthy language and, as such, the complainant/respondent herein

at every possible apprehension that the accused/petitioner shall

commit the murder of the complainant/respondent herein and that the

said act of the accused/petitioner herein is criminal for which they

are liable to be tried under law and punished accordingly.

3. The impugned compliant upon being presented before the court

below after being registered came to be proceeded with by the court

below and the impugned order of cognizance and summoning of the

accused/petitioner passed.

4. The impugned compliant as also the impugned order dated 10-05-

2018 are being challenged inter alia on the grounds that the

transaction between the parties as alleged in the compliant is civil in

nature and do not make out any offence alleged to have been

committed by the accused/petitioner and that the impugned

compliant has been filed with mala fide object of building pressure

upon the accused/petitioner making them to surrender to the wishes

of the respondent and for agreeing to the terms and conditions

imposed by the respondent. The filing of the compliant is alleged to

be abuse a process of law and the impugned order is also urged to

have been passed by the court below not in accordance with law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the record tends to show that the complainant/respondent

herein has in the compliant alleged commission of offences under

Section 109, 420, 504 and 506 RPC by the accused/petitioner herein,

as such, it would be appropriate to refer in brief to the said

provisions of RPC before adverting to the issues raised in the

petition.

6. Section 109 provides for punishment of abetment in law, is not a

matter of mere suspicious or surmise. A plain reading of Section 109

contemplates active abetment at the time of offence being

committed. In order to attract the provisions of Section 109, it must

appear and be proved that the abator had instigated for the doing of a

particular thing or engaged with one or more other person or persons

in