HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

CRM(M) No. 549/2022

Sauid Ahmed and others

.....Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. A. M. Malik, Advocate

v/s

Union Territory of J&K and others

.....Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA for R-1 & 2

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing the FIR No. 0137/2022 dated 31.05.2022 for offences punishable

under Sections 323, 325 IPC registered at Police Station, Surankote, District,

Poonch, ( for brevity 8impugned FIR9).

2.

Challenging the F.I.R., it is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the father the petitioners, namely, Mushtaq Ahmed is

having land dispute with the husband of the respondent No. 3, namely,

Ghulam Qadir alias Qadra and in this behalf the husband of the respondent

No. 3 had already filed a civil suit with regard to land measuring 19 Marias

falling under Khasra No.865 situated at Village Surankote, Poonch which is

subjudice before the competent court of law at Surnakote. It is stated that in

addition to the aforementioned suit, the father of the petitioners along with

others had filed an appeal against Mutation No. 220 and Mutation No. 366

regarding Khasra No. 365 situated in Village Surankote, Tehsil Surankote

2

CRM(M) 549/2022

before Additional Deputy Commissioner Poonch against the husband of

respondent No. 3.

3.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent

No. 3 and her other relation conspired with each other moved a false

application before the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of the said

application the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. It is

further stated that a purely civil dispute has been converted into a criminal

dispute, therefore, the same is the abuse of process of law.

4.

Aggrieved by the FIR in question, the petitioners challenge the

validity of the said FIR, inter alia, on various following grounds:-

(a) That the impugned FIR No. 0137/2022 dated

31.05.2022 is bad in law as well as the facts and is

liable to be quashed;

b) That the impugned FIR No. 0137/2022 dated

31.05.2022 has been registered by respondent No.3 as

a counterblast to the Appeal and order dated

02.02.2021

passed

by

Additional

Deputy

Commissioner, Poonch against the husband of the

respondent No. 3;

c) That the impugned FIR registered against the

petitioners is false and frivolous and is filed only to

satisfy private and personal grudge against the

petitioner;

d) That the impugned FIR has been registered against

the petitioners threatening them to withdraw the civil

proceedings, so, when the petitioners refuse to accede

to their nefarious demand, false impugned FIR No.

0137/2022 dated 31.05.2022 was registered against

the petitioners which clearly shows that the impugned

FIR is false frivolous and vexatious and, therefore,

impugned FIR is required to be quashed.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material on record.

3

CRM(M) 549/2022

6.

Precisely, the ground taken by the petitioners for quashing the

FIR in question is that there is a litigation pending between the parties on

account of land dispute and on the basis of that a false report was made to

the police on the basis of which impugned FIR has been registered.

7.

The contents of the FIR in question would reveal that a report

with regard to the incident which took place on 18.05.2022 was made to the

police by the complainant and the said report was reproduced in the daily

register of the police. Since the injured was admitted in the hospital,

therefore, in pursuance of the report made to it, the injured was medically

examined by the Medical Board and when the said Board reported that the

injured had suffered fractu