Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 437 (JK)

Asha Ram v. State Of J&K

2010-08-11

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2010
1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A of J&K Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.15/2007 under sections 323/307/341/325/34/201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered against them at Police Station Arnia, final report submitted by respondent no.2 and the charge framed vide order dated 30.4.2008 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. It is contended that petitioners 2 & 3 were not present when the alleged incident occurred. Petitioner no.3 has neither made any disclosure statement nor any recovery has been effected. FIR and the investigation conducted are false and is the outcome of malafide intentions. The disclosure statement is also manipulated. 3. It appears that petitioners have raised some factual aspects of the case detailed in para-3 of the petition. These are the matters to be thrashed out during trial and at this stage cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR, final report and the charge framed. At the time of framing charge the court has to take into consideration the material on the file and mere suspicion is enough for framing the charge. Whether disclosure statement has been made or not and whether that has led to recovery is also a matter to be gone through during trial. Learned trial court has passed the detailed order. It is apt to reproduce paras 2, 3 & 5 of the order herein : "2. The allegations appearing against the accused as per the Challan are that on 1.3.2007 at Nanak Chak, at 10 PM, the accused persons attacked the complainant and his brother Paramjit Singh and thereafter caused injuries on his persons. After recording the statements of the witnesses and effecting recoveries of the weapon allegedly used by the accused, challan against the accused came to be presented in the court. 3. As per the certificate issued by the doctor after examination in respect of the injuries suffered by Paramjit Singh are that he suffered simple as well as grievous injuries on his person. As per the certificate of doctor, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. 3. As per the certificate issued by the doctor after examination in respect of the injuries suffered by Paramjit Singh are that he suffered simple as well as grievous injuries on his person. As per the certificate of doctor, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. In the present case where the accused inflicted several injuries on the victim but none of the injuries was singly or cumulatively dangerous to life, the requirement that the act must be done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder would emerge, was not fulfilled regarding the offence u/s 307 RPC. In the instant case the victim has received all the injuries, which are simple in nature. This manifestly shows that where the intention of the accused was to cause the simple injuries to the victim, the intention to cause the death cannot be attributed to them so as to make it a prima facie case of attempt to murder." 4. The remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with great care and caution and in exceptional cases. 5. Keeping in view the scope of section 561-A Cr.P.C. and the ratio of judgment of Apex Court read with the facts and reasons recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, I am of the considered view that this petition merits to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim direction is vacated. Registry to send a copy of the order to the trial court.