Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 747 (JK)

Mulkh Raj v. State of J&K

2018-09-28

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIRs filed against them by each other in Police Station Reasi In CrMC No. 344/2015, petitioners therein are seeking quashing/setting aside of First Information Number 79/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 341/323/147/506 RPC registered at Police Station Reasi. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner along with other trustees are running the affairs of Baba Dhansar Shrine situated at Katra. Prior to the petitioners, the affairs of the shrine were managed by the villagers including respondent No. 2 and the pilferage in the donation received by Baba Dhansar from their devotees was noticed by the society and there was misuse of the assets owned by the Baba Dhansar Shrine. Hence, the villagers formed a trust and a trust-deed was drafted and registered in the Court of law over which the Government has direct control over the management of trust and can any time take over the trust. Being unhappy with the formation of the trust, the respondents along with some more persons filed a case before the Court of Principal District Judge Reasi and challenged the trust-deed which is still pending adjudication. On 27.05.2015 at about 9 pm when petitioner along with Jagdish Kumar was coming towards his house from Baba Dhansar, respondent No.2 along with respondent No.3 to 7 stopped petitioner No.1 and caught him from his neck and started beating petitioner No.1. Said respondents also threatened to do away with the life of petitioner who was rescued by some passers bye. Petitioners immediately reported the matter to the Police Station Reasi but the FIR was not lodged on that day instead FIR No.80/2015 for the offences punishable 341/323/147 and 506 of RPC was lodged on the next day on moving a written application. 2. On the next day, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and others were already in the Police Station and respondent No.2 being the Sarpanch of the village got his false frivolous FIR No. 79/2015 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/147/506 RPC in which it is stated that villagers including Sham Lal-respondent No.2 have formed a group and framed a trust to usurp the management of the aforesaid Shrine but the Trust deed was challenged before the Court. Sham Lal-respondent No.2 along with other respondents ganged up and attacked Ram Parkash, who is complainant in FIR No.79/2015. 3. Petitioners in CRMC No.344/2015 have sought the quashing of FIR Nos.79/2015 on the grounds stated herein below: (a) That the said FIR is not maintainable as there are no sufficient grounds to proceed in the compliant. As is evident from the cursory reading of the compliant/FIR No. 79/2015 complainant/respondent No.2-Ram Parkash is seeking to prosecute the accused/petitioner in the complaint. Petitioner submits that the prosecution initiated by the respondent has been launched by respondent No.12 without any application of mind and on irrelevant consideration. (b) That the petitioner submits that the complaint filed against the petitioner does not disclose commissioning of any offence and that the launching of such criminal prosecution is perverse, malafide and illegal and the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. (c) It is further stated that the accused in FIR No. 79/2015 are having inimical relations with the complainant –petitioner because of the pending litigation and the present FIR is off shoot of the civil litigation. Whereas the petitioner in petition No.301/2015 seek quashment of FIR No. 80/2015 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/341/147/506 of RPC on the grounds that : (a) The impugned FIR cannot sustain for the reasons that respondent No.2 was himself an aggressor and he has already been booked for commission of offence under Sections 323/341/147/506 of RPC so no offence can be deemed to be committed against him. (b) That the offences alleged to have been committed pertains to the same date and time for which FIR already stands registered and respondent NO.1 is one of the accused as such the second FIR on the same genesis cannot be imagined but the FIR on the complaint of accused has been registered who was aggressor and so the same cannot sustain. Moreover, the impugned FIR is registered as a counterblast to the earlier FIR in which respondent No. 2-Sham Lal is an accused. (c) That the impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt to counter the earlier proceedings in which respondent No.2-Sham lal is an accused and to pressurize the petitioner to reach a compromise and the same deserves quashment. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. 5. (c) That the impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt to counter the earlier proceedings in which respondent No.2-Sham lal is an accused and to pressurize the petitioner to reach a compromise and the same deserves quashment. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. 5. From the perusal of contents of FIR no.79/2015 u/s 341/323/147/506 impugned in first petition, it is evident that the same has been lodged by one Ram Parkash (petitioner in second petition) and cognizable offences are made out against all the petitioners. Accusation is that Ram Parkash (respondent No.2 in CRMC No.344/2015) had lodged the FIR against all the petitioners-Sham Lal S/o Amar Nath (2) Sahil Kumar S/o Sham Lal (3) Subash Chander S/o Puran Chand (4) Mulkh Raj S/o Mansa Ram (5) Pawan Kumar S/o Prabh Dayal (6) Vijay Kumar S/o Badri Nath, R/o Karua Tehsil & District Reasi; that in village Karua, there is a Dev Sthan namely Baba Dhansar; that local villagers are looking after the affairs of Baba Dhansar since so many years; that accused persons have clandestinely created a Trust and they are forcibly controlling the affairs of the said Baba Dhansar Trust, due to which local residents are not happy; that the complainant is Sarpanch of the village and 15-20 days ago on the request/asking of the locals had unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that Baba Dhansar Trust has not been validly constituted Trust and since a case is pending in the Court, so the affairs of the Baba Dhansar be looked after by the locals again; on 27/5/2015 at about 8 pm, they attacked on complainant, inflicted injuries and abused in order to kill him. Accused also threatened to do away with his life. Similarly perusal of FIR no.80/2015 u/s 341/323/147/506, impugned in second petition, it is evident that the same has been lodged by some of petitioners in another petition and cognizable offences are made out against petitioner-Ram Parkash. Accusation is that on 22.05.2015 at about 9 PM when the complainant alongwith Jagdish Dutt S/o Sh. Similarly perusal of FIR no.80/2015 u/s 341/323/147/506, impugned in second petition, it is evident that the same has been lodged by some of petitioners in another petition and cognizable offences are made out against petitioner-Ram Parkash. Accusation is that on 22.05.2015 at about 9 PM when the complainant alongwith Jagdish Dutt S/o Sh. Shanker Dass R/o Village Karua, Tehsil Katra, District Reasi, was coming from Baba Dhansar towards his house, all the accused persons, stopped his way and caught hold the complainant from his neck and started beating with fists and lathies, and abused him and threatened to do away with his life; that on raising hue and cry, few persons namely (1) Mulkh Raj S/o Sh. Mansa Ram (2) Ganesh Dass S/o Om Parkash (3) Ashwani Kumar S/o Prem Chand (4) Sham Lal (Numberdar) S/o Sh. Isher Dass, all R/o village Karua, Tehsil Katra, District Reasi, attracked on spot and saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons; that when the accused persons ran away from the spot, they said that they will kill the complainant whenever they will get an opportunity again; that all the accused persons are on inimical terms with the complainant and other persons; that all the accused persons namely (1) Ram Parkash (2) Shanker Chand (3) Bachitter, all sons of Late Lachan, (4) Sunny Verma S/o Ramu (5) Subash Chander S/o Late Lachan R/o Upper Karua (6) Pankaj Verma S/o Ram Parkash, all R/o Lower Karua, Tehsil Katra, District Reasi may kindly be booked under the penal provisions of law in the interest of justice. 6. Time of incident in both FIRs is different, however, date of incident is same. In both the cases, petitioner have raised disputed question of facts, in defence, which are required to be appreciated during the investigation conducted by police. 7. The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Time of incident in both FIRs is different, however, date of incident is same. In both the cases, petitioner have raised disputed question of facts, in defence, which are required to be appreciated during the investigation conducted by police. 7. The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154 which is in that Chapter deals with information in cognizable offences and Section 156 with investigation into such offences and under these sections the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under the inherent power of the court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The investigation under the Code, takes in several aspects, and stages, ending ultimately with the formation of an opinion by the police as to whether, on the material covered and collected, a case is made out to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial, and the submission of either a charge sheet or a final report is dependent on the nature of the opinion, so formed. The formation of the said opinion, by the police, is the final step in the investigation, and that final step is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority. 8. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is his bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is his duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is his duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of police station in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., as this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. 9. As already held, petitioners have based their grounds for quashing of FIRs, on appreciation of facts, which this court cannot conduct in petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C; it is not the cases of petitioners that there is some legal bar engrafted in law for lodging of FIRs or investigation of case. 10. In view of above, I do not find any legal grounds to quash the FIRs. Both the petitions, therefore, are dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. Let copy of this order be placed on the file of both cases.