Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 594 (JK)

Ab. Ahad Mir v. Crime Branch & Ors.

2012-09-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashment of FIR No. 24/2005 dated 13.05.2005 registered by the Crime Branch, Srinagar under Sections 420,468 and 471 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short, RFC), the investigation conducted and the proceedings drawn thereon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar in case titled Ghulam Mohd. Bhat v. Abdul Ahad Mir, on the grounds which can be precisely summarized as under. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was facing the trial in a criminal case instituted by the Vigilance Department before the Anti Corruption Court, Srinagar. One Farooq Ahmad, Constable, who was serving in the said department, is a relation of respondents 2 & 3. He introduced the petitioner with respondents 2 & 3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the said Court for a period of one year. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court against his conviction and sentence, which is pending disposal and the petitioner has been admitted to bail. It is stated that respondents 2 & 3 instituted a false and frivolous suit against the petitioner. It is further stated that earlier also a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner herein before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which was transferred to the Court of City Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Srinagar, almost on the same grounds taken in the civil suit. The said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter respondents 2 & 3 lodged FIR No. 24/2005 on 13.05.2005 against the petitioner, registered at Crime Branch, Srinagar under Sections 420,468 and 471 RFC. Investigation was conducted and challan was presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 512 Cr. P.C. were drawn against the petitioner. It is contended that the entire facts were brought to the notice of Crime Branch urging that the matter is of civil nature, but despite that charge sheet was presented against the petitioner herein, which is abuse of process of law. 3. A perusal of the file reveals that a challan was presented against the petitioner in his absence and proceedings under Section 512 Cr. P.C. were initiated against him, as he evaded his arrest and failed to cause appearance before the said Court right from 17.09.2003. 3. A perusal of the file reveals that a challan was presented against the petitioner in his absence and proceedings under Section 512 Cr. P.C. were initiated against him, as he evaded his arrest and failed to cause appearance before the said Court right from 17.09.2003. However, on 27.09.2011 counsel for the petitioner in his absence moved an application for recalling the proceedings drawn under Section 512 Cr. P.C. and for admitting him to bail. On 29.10.2011 accused did not cause his appearance however, his counsel was present. Application moved on 27.09.2011 was rejected and State was directed to produce evidence in terms of Section 512 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.10.2011. Petitioner questioned the said order by the medium of revision petition which came to be disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar in terms of order dated 29.12.2011. 4. It appears, the petitioner did not cause his appearance before the trial court, as directed, and also did not allow the trial court to proceed ahead. He instead filed the petition in hand before this Court on 24.02.2012. A perusal of the file does reveal that it is the petitioner who was responsible for causing delay in conducting the trial of the case and, thus, he abused the process of law. I have also gone through the FIR and the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be said to be abuse of process of law in any way. 5. It is beaten law of the land that the remedy under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. The Apex Court has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E. Society v. Siddalingesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A. P. v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah, 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1998. 6. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out at this stage. However, the petitioner can argue at the time of framing of charge and it is for the trial court to examine the material collected and the report submitted by the investigating agency and frame an opinion whether charge is made out. 7. In the given circumstances, there is no merit in the petition, dismissed as such along with all Cr.M.Ps.