Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 631 (JK)

Sunita Kapoor & anr. v. State & Ors.

2012-10-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
By the medium of this petition, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash FIR No.129/2012 Registered at Police Station R. S. Pura, Jammu, under sections 447/451 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short, RPC), on the grounds taken in it. 2. It appears that respondent no.6, Sukhdev Singh, on 28.07.2012 filed a written complaint before the Incharge, Police Station R. S. Pura, alleging therein that petitioners-accused, namely, Sunita Kapoor wife of Narinder Kapoor and Bharat Bhushan son of Narinder Kapoor, after breaking the locks of the shops have forcefully and illegally occupied possession of the same. As per the allegations made in the complaint, complainant, respondent no.6 herein, requested the petitioners-accused to vacate the premises but, instead of adhering to his request, both of them attacked him. Accordingly, FIR was lodged at Police Station R. S. Pura, which set the police agency in motion. 3. Petitioners, while seeking quashing of the FIR, have averred in the petition that the matter is of civil in nature and lodging of FIR is just to harass them and deprive them of their legitimate rights. 4. It appears the investigation is at its threshold, as the Investigating Officer is conducting the investigation. 5. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:- “561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 6. This remedy can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. 7. The Apex Court in Som Mittal vs Govt. 7. The Apex Court in Som Mittal vs Govt. of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW 1003, and M. N. Ojha vs Alok Kumar Srivastav, AIR 2010 SC 201 , while laying down the tests, has held that the remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code) and inherent power should not be exercised by the Courts in a routine manner, rather has to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and in rarest of rare cases. 8. Applying the aforesaid tests, it can be safely said that the petitioner has failed to carve out a case. 9. This Court also in a case, Mian Abdul Qayoom vs State & others, 561-A Cr.P.C. 98/2010, decided on 31.12.2010, reported in 2011 (1) JKJ 470 (HC), has held that the Courts should refrain from making prima facie decision at the infancy stage or in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy. 10. The power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. has to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. The case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the said parameters. It is beaten law of the land that conducting of investigation cannot be scuttled away en-route. 11. I have gone through the entire petition and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case of petitioners falls within the ambit/contours of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 12. In the given circumstance, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine along with all connected CrMPs. 13. Registry to convey the order to the concerned police agency.