Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 53 (JK)

Sham Sunder v. Shikha Sharma

2007-04-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2007
1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of this petition for quashing of proceedings in the complaint titled Dr. Shikha Sharma v. Sham Sunder and ors under Section 295 RPC drawn by Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Jammu on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. Heard. It appears that Dr. Shikha Sharma-complainant filed a complaint before Special Judge-Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 295, 295-A read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Panel Code, for short, "RPC". Preliminary statements of complainant and one witness came to be recorded on 6th of October, 2005 and after going through the complaint and the said statements, trial Court- Special Judge has drawn cognizance and issued process against the accused-petitioners herein for the commission of offence punishable under Section 295 RPC. Summons came to be issued to the accused-petitioners. 3. Feeling aggrieved, this petition came to be filed. Notice came to be issued and proceedings came to be stayed vide order dated 11.11.2005. Record was also summoned. This is how the proceedings in the complaint came to be delayed. 4. The crucial point involved in this petition is whether the petitioners have carved out a case for quashing the proceedings. The answer is negative. 5. Section 561-A Cr. P. C empowers the Court -High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of the Court and that power can be exercised and proceedings can be quashed only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. But if the allegation set out in the complaint do constitute offence of which cognizance taken, it is not open to the Court to exercise inherent powers and quash the proceedings. 6. Applying the said principle to the instant case, I am of the considered view that this petition is mis-conceived for the following reasons:- 7. Complainant has specifically averred in paras 6 and 12 of the complaint that complainant had kept a photo of "Goddess Mata Vaishno Devi" in her home. 6. Applying the said principle to the instant case, I am of the considered view that this petition is mis-conceived for the following reasons:- 7. Complainant has specifically averred in paras 6 and 12 of the complaint that complainant had kept a photo of "Goddess Mata Vaishno Devi" in her home. She also took an oath that she had no concern with the dispute but despite of that the accused Sham Shunder took the photo of "Mata Vaishno Devi" from wall and threw it towards the complainant and glass was broken into pieces thereby destroyed, damaged the sacred object i. e photo of Goddess with an intention to insult the religion and religious feelings of the complainant. Other accused i. e accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also stated that they do not care for such Gods and insulted her religion and feelings. Preliminary statements recorded prima facie support the allegations contained in the complaint. Viewed thus I have come to the conclusion that no ground is made for granting this relief. 8. In the given circumstances, this petition merits to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Send down the records. The accused are directed to cause appearance before the Trial court on 1st of May, 2007.