HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

Reserved on : 13.07.2022

Pronounced on: 27.07.2022

CRMC 328/2014

IA No. 381/2014

Sumit Magotra others

.....Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate

v/s

Mahant Kalidas Saadh Bairagi

.....Respondent(s)

Through:-Mr. A. K. Shan, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-ACr.P.C is being

invoked by the petitioners for quashment of complaint titled "Mahant

Kalidas Saadh Bairagi & others vs. Sumit Magotra & another under

Sections 365, 323, 342, 500, 120-B RPC pending in the Court of Forest

Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate Class), Jammu (for brevity >learned

Magistrate) and the order dated 09.03.2013 by virtue of which process has

been issued for summoning the petitioners.

2.

In the instant petition, the aforesaid complaint and the process

issued is sought to be quashed precisely, on the following grounds:-

i)

That there is no specific allegation against petitioners No. 2, 3, 6

to 12 and allegations level against other petitioners are so vague

2 CRMC 328/2014

that the Learned Magistrate should have out rightly rejected the

complaint of the respondents and should not have taken

cognizance of the complaint;

ii)

That the allegation made in the complaint are so absurd and

inherently improbable on the basis of which no product person can

even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding against the petitioners;

iii)

That the petitioner no. 6 was not on duty on 1^st March , 2013. This

fact is evident from the entries made in the daily diary register of

P/P Mandir Bahu Fort Jammu. The inclusion of his name makes it

clear that the complaint was filed only to harass the petitioners so

that respondents are allowed to carry on illegal construction. The

issue of process against petitioner no.6 is misuse of process of law.

iv)

That the petitioner no. 1,3 and one Mukesh Kumar, 241 / SPO-J

went on spot to stop the respondents from doing illegal work and

the Court below has not consider this fact that the petitioners were

doing their duty that too on the request of Director, Directorate of

Archives Archaeology & Museums, Jammu Govt. of J&K;

v)

That the complaint seems to have been filed as a pressure tactic to

overawe the police officers from taking any action against the

respondents, who are trying to raise illegal construction;

vi)

That the petitioners No. 2, 4 to 12 were not there on spot when

petitioners no. 1,3 and one Mukesh Kumar, 241/SPO-J went to

Kali Mata Temple to enquire about the encroachment. The

inclusion of names of the petitioners in the complaint clearly shows

that the respondents want to pressurize police of Police Post

Mandir Bahu Fort , Jammu, so that , they do not stop the

respondents from doing encroachment in the Bahu Fort premises.

3 CRMC 328/2014

3.

Briefly stating the allegations made in the complaint of which

the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process for the

aforementioned offences, are as under:-

<That accused no. l along with rest of the eleven

accused (petitioners herein) and few other unknown

persons under the directions of accused no. l, on 1^st

March, 2013 at about 02:00 p.m. entered the temple

of Shree Narsingh Ji Maharaj with all their weapons

and 'lathis' wearing shoes and soon thereafter caught

hold of the complainant no. l from his collar, slapped

him and started beating him while the complainants

were performing their duties as Mahant and Pujari