Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 932 (JK)

Mohd. Karim v. State

2017-10-12

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. In the instant petition, the petitioners seeks quashment of FIR (Annexure-A) No. 87/2017, dated 21st April, 2017 registered at Police Station, Bishnah Jammu by the respondent No. 3 at the instance of respondent No. 4 under Sections 363/109 RPC against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioners also seek quashment of the investigation being conducted by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. In this petition, it has been stated that petitioner No. 4, namely, Farman Ali solemnized marriage with the daughter of respondent No. 4, namely, Raveena on 08th June, 2017 and a Marriage Agreement got registered and the Nikah Nama also got performed between the petitioner No. 4 and the said Raveena. The petitioner No. 4 solemnized and contracted marriage out of his free will, without any coercion and pressure from any corner. Both the petitioner No. 4 and Raveena were living together as husband and wife, however, the marriage of the petitioner No. 4 was to the disliking of respondent No. 4, i.e., the father of the said Raveena, who opposed the marriage of petitioner No. 4 with his daughter and the respondent No. 4 succeeded for registration of a false, frivolous and baseless FIR against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences under Section 363/109 RPC with respondent No. 3, i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station Bishnah, Jammu and on the basis of false, frivolous and baseless FIR, the respondent No. 3 is making every effort to arrest the petitioner No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 continuously harassing the petitioners. 2. The FIR registered by the respondent No. 3 at the instance of respondent No. 4 for the alleged commission of offences under the aforesaid Sections is required to be quashed inasmuch as the same is abuse of process of law and no offence under the aforesaid Sections has been committed by the petitioners, as such the petitioner No. 4 and the daughter of respondent No. 4 contracted marriage out of their free will and without any coercion and at no point of time, the petitioners kidnapped the daughter of respondent No. 4, which fact is evident from the marriage agreement, Nikah Nama and the recorded statement of the daughter of respondent No. 4 before the Munsiff JMIC, Akhnoor. 3. 3. The respondent No. 3 registered a false and frivolous FIR against the petitioners and the petitioners are law abiding persons and the petitioners did not commit any offence, as alleged by the respondent No. 4 and as such, the FIR requires to be quashed and the aforementioned facts clearly demonstrate the abuse of process of law, as no specific allegation was ever made against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled, "Neelu Chopra and Anr. v. Bharti" reported as AIR 2009 SC (Suppl. 2954) while dealing such like situation has given the observation, which is stated herein below:- "In order to lodge a proper Complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the Complaint, the Complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence". 4. There is no allegation or averment against the petitioners in the FIR impugned and under such circumstances; it would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, it has been prayed that FIR impugned is required to be quashed. 5. The status report on behalf of respondent No. 3 (SHO, Police Station, Bishnah) has been filed, stating therein that on 21st April, 2017 at about 17.30 hours, complainant/respondent No. 4 herein has lodged a Complaint in Police Station, Bishnah, alleging therein that his daughter, namely, Raveena aged 14 years has gone in the Bishnah market, but she did not turned back at home. In the said Complaint, he has further alleged that they have made their best efforts to locate the girl, but she could not be recovered. However, in the meanwhile, he came to know that his daughter has been kidnapped by the accused persons (petitioners herein). On the basis of this Complaint, FIR No. 87/2017 under Sections 363/109 RPC was registered in Police Station, Bishnah and the investigation was commenced. However, in the meanwhile, he came to know that his daughter has been kidnapped by the accused persons (petitioners herein). On the basis of this Complaint, FIR No. 87/2017 under Sections 363/109 RPC was registered in Police Station, Bishnah and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses including the complainant and his wife under Section 161 Cr. P.C. the answering respondent further submits that the best efforts are being made to nab the accused persons, as they are evading their arrest. The kidnapped girl is yet to be recovered. 6. The Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, has produced CD file also. 7. I have considered the contents of FIR and other documents annexed herein. The perusal of photocopy of marriage agreement, it reveals that, it does not bear signatures of parties; it only bears signature of witnesses and notary; so notary has attested the document of agreement of marriage without signatures of parties. In this way this document has no value in the eyes of law. No reliance can be placed on it. Perusal of C/D file I find that there is photocopy of AADHAAR CARD of victim; which reveals that date of birth of victim/prosecutrix is 5.6.2002 and occurrence is dated 21.4.2017, so victim was below 15 years thus minor. In this way, she was not competent to execute marriage agreement. The law cited (supra) is not applicable in present set of circumstances. 8. So allegations are grave and require a thorough investigation. In view of the above, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MPs.