Advocates:
['S M CHOWDHARY', 'H A SIDDIQUI', '', 'S S NANDA SR AAG']

CRMC No. 383/2014 Page 1 of 7

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRMC No.383/2014 & IA No. 445/2014

Date of Order:30.08.2018

Mohd Iqbal Zargar

v

State of J&K and ors

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge

Appearance:

For the petitioner (s)

:

Mr. Arun Songotra, Advocate vice

Mr. S. M. Chowdhary, Advocate

For the respondent(s)

:

Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG

i.

Whether approved for

:

Yes/No

reporting in Press/Media

ii.

Whether to be reported in

:

Yes/ No

Digest/Journal

1.

In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.09.2014

passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the

petitioner has been charged for offence under Sections 420,467,468,471

read with Section 120-B RPC.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as a Girdawar in the

Revenue Department and is presently posted at Tehsil Thathri. On

02.01.2009, respondent No.5 being husband and attorney holder of

respondent No.6, filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate Jammu for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The

allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner has forged the

register of Khasra Girdawari and made fictitious entries in the name of

Swar Ali and Mubarak Ali with respect to land measuring 2 kanals under

Kh.No.01 min owned and possessed by the respondent No.6 situated at

village Sunjwan Tehsil and District Jammu. It is further contended that

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in turn, directed in-charge Police

Station Crime Branch-respondent No.3 to look into the allegations and

proceed under law. The respondent No.3, in pursuance of the order dated

CRMC No. 383/2014 Page 2 of 7

09.07.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Jammu, registered FIR No.18 of

2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B RPC

against the petitioner and other accused persons mentioned in the

complaint. After registration of FIR, respondent No.3 has produced the

challan before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu on

25.04.2013, who vide its order dated 29.09.2014 has discharged the co-

accused, namely, Haji Sultan, Sadiq Ali, Abdul Khaliq, Sham Din and

Akhtar Ali as apparently no prima facie case was found against them,

whereas the petitioner and two other alleged accused, namely, Mubarak

Ali and Swar Ali have been charged for offence mentioned above.

3.

It is further stated that there was no sufficient ground before the learned

trial court to proceed against the petitioner. Even if the evidence which

the prosecution purposes to adduce to prove the guilt of petitioner is fully

accepted, the same does not show that the petitioner has committed the

offence. In the charge sheet, a presumption has been drawn by the

prosecution that the petitioner was the custodian of record when the

insertion was made; the learned trial court without sifting the record has

drawn a wrong conclusion and held the petitioner responsible which is

not based on facts and material available. Further it is stated in the charge

sheet that on 17.08.2009, the petitioner, then Halqa Patwari Sunjwan

produced the said register girdwari before the Tehsildar Settlement

Jammu for verification, who after detecting the forged entry, ordered

cancellation of the said girdawri made in the name of the accused

persons. Perusal of register Fard partal dated 17.08.2009 entered by the

Tehsildar Settlement Jammu reveals that the same was produced for

verification by t