Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 187 (JK)

Ramzan Ali v. State

2018-03-27

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 360/2013 dated 23.09.2013 of Police Station, Kathua registered against them under the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua passed on a complaint filed by herein respondent No.5. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Advocate and Mr. L.K. Moza, learned AAG for the respondents. 3. In the complaint filed by respondent No.5, it was alleged that on 23.09.2013 at about 8 a.m., he was going to the crusher site of his father at village, Babera. He was accompanied by one Babu Singh. The petitioners, who were armed with lathis and sticks, waylaid him with a common criminal object and started hurling abuses and filthy remarks upon him and his family members. He tried to prevent them from misbehaving with him but they became even more hyper and started inflicting fist blows and kicks to and beating him with sticks. He fell down when petitioner, Lokraj, snatched the gold chain valuing 15,000 rupees, which he was wearing around his neck. 4. In order to seek quashing of the FIR, it is contended by the petitioners that they are the inhabitants of village, Babera and had filed a writ petition in this court through petitioner No.1 challenging the consent order for running the stone crusher by its owner, Babhishan Singh, herein respondent No.4, who is father of respondent No.5 (complainant), in which the said Babhishan Singh was also arrayed as one of the respondents. In that writ petition, this Court vide order dated 04.09.2013 (Annexure A) by way of interim measure had directed maintenance of status quo as regards the position on spot as well as legal status of the land covered under that writ petition. The father of respondent No.5, however, did not obey the order passed by the Court compelling the petitioners therein to file a contempt petition against Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police of District, Kathua and Tehsildar, Kathua. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complaint came to be filed against them by respondent No.5 at the behest of the said officers because of their fear that they may be punished in the contempt application. 5. High Court under section 561-A of the Code (sec. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complaint came to be filed against them by respondent No.5 at the behest of the said officers because of their fear that they may be punished in the contempt application. 5. High Court under section 561-A of the Code (sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to seek quashing of an FIR and investigation by the police or any criminal proceedings pending in any court if it is shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that such proceedings is the abuse of process of the court or tends to cause miscarriage of justice or the quashing is otherwise required to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court though vast, by now is well defined and circumscribed by virtue of various authorities of the Supreme Court. (See R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to point out and emphasized that falsity of the accusations in the complaint lodged by respondent No.5 is writ large from the fact that he had gone to the extent of alleging that one of the petitioners stole a golden chain valuing 15,000 rupees, which he was wearing. Learned counsel would say that the allegation of theft was leveled by respondent No.5 only to add gravity to the alleged incident in order to get the FIR registered against the petitioners and to harass them. 7. It is not denied that the inhabitants of village, Babera were opposing the proposed installation of a stone crusher by the father of respondent No.2 in the village and had, therefore, approached this court in OWP No. 1211/2013 in which the interim measure as stated above was ordered by this Court on 04.09.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.04.2015 by directing the father of respondent No.5 (complainant) not to operate the crusher till all formalities are fulfilled. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.04.2015 by directing the father of respondent No.5 (complainant) not to operate the crusher till all formalities are fulfilled. Annexure B to this writ petition is copy of the contempt application, which the petitioners of that writ petition had filed against the aforementioned officers and the father of herein respondent No.5. 8. Having regard to the background facts, I find substance in the plea taken on behalf of the petitioners that the complaint was filed by respondent No.5 only to pressurize the petitioners against pursuing the contempt petition filed by them against the officers and father of the complainant. This opinion gets strengthened when it is found that the I.O. after investigation has recorded a positive finding that offences under sections 382 and 149 were not proved meaning thereby that no theft had taken place and therefore, allegation to that extent was false. 9. Having regard to the background facts in which the complaint was filed by the private respondent, I find sufficient ground for holding that filing of the complaint by respondent No.5 on the basis whereof the impugned FIR was registered was a sheer misuse of process of the court and indulgence of this Court is required to secure the ends of justice. 10. Viewed thus, the impugned FIR No.360/2013 is quashed. 11. Record of the case be returned to the learned Additional Advocate General.