Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 373 (JK)

Mohd. Rashid v. State

2019-08-08

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Kumar, J.— Crl.M No. 886/2019 in CRMC No. 830/2018. 1. This is an application seeking to place on record a copy of the Compromise Deed. For the reasons detailed in the application, it is allowed. Copy of the Compromise Deed is taken on record. Application disposed of. 2. CRMC No. 830/2018. In this petition, the petitioner Mohd. Rashid has challenged the order of Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote dated 09.10.2017 whereby the Magistrate while initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.PC has attached the immoveable property bearing under Khasra Nos.1586, 1587, 1580 and 1603 situated at Mankote, Mendhar, Distt. Poonch. The petitioner Mohd Rashid has also called-in-question the order of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 15.11.2018 passed in a Revision preferred by the petitioner Mohd Rashid against the aforesaid order of the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Teshildar), Mankote whereby the Revision Petition of the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that the order of attachment is not revisable in terms of Section 435(a) (4) of the Cr.PC. The genesis of the dispute between the parties, i.e., petitioner Mohd Rashid and respondent No.3-Mohd Akber lies in the rival claim of the parties to the possession of the land measuring 03 Kanals 08 Marlas in Khasra No.1586, 9 Kanal 6 Marlas in Khasra No.1587, 3 Kanals in Khasra No. 1580 and 5 Kanals 19 Marlas in Khasra No.1603 situate at Mankote, Tehsil Mendhar, Distt. Poonch. The petitioner Mohd Rashid claims that he is in possession of the subject land falling in Khasra Nos.1586 and 1587 whereas the respondent No.3 Mohd Akber claims that he is in possession of the land falling in Khasra Nos.1580 and 1603. It is claimed by the petitioner that he and respondent No.3 are co-sharers of the aforesaid property, but, are in possession of their respective shares, as is evident from the revenue record. It is alleged that respondent No.3 Mohd Akber made an attempt to encroach upon the land in possession of the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file the Civil Suit in the court of learned Munsiff, Mendhar and as a counter blast the respondent No.3 too filed a Civil Suit for partition on the similar grounds before the learned Munsiff Mendhar. It is stated that in both the suits, the Civil Court passed the order of status quo. It is stated that in both the suits, the Civil Court passed the order of status quo. It is submitted that while both the parties were litigating in the Civil Court, on the report of the SDPO, Mendhar and SDM Mendhar, the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar), Mankote apprehending that there was likelihood of breach of peace concerning the subject land, initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC and vide its order dated 09.10.2017 attached the subject properties and kept the same on Superdnama. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order by way of Revision before the learned District Judge, Poonch, who vide its order dated 15.11.2018 dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that the order of attachment was interlocutory order, therefore, was not revisable. It is this order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote dated 09.10.2017 and order in Revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 15.11.2018, which are subject matter of challenge in this petition. This Court while issuing notice in the petition on 31.12.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the land-in-question. 3. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner-Mohd Rashid filed a complaint before the SHO. Police Station, Mendhar against respondent-Mohd Akber and his five sons for setting ablaze the grass allegedly stacked at his land. On the basis of the complaint of Mohd Rashid. FIR No.219 of 2018 for the offence under Section 435 RPC was registered in the Police Station, Mendhar against the respondent No.3- Mohd Akber and his five sons. Aggrieved the respondent No.3-Mohd Akber invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested in terms of Section 561-A Cr.PC and filed CRMC No. 50/2019. The respondent No.3 along with his five sons also filed an application for anticipatory bail, which is registered as Bail App No.09/2019. In the CRMC No.50/2019, this Court vide its order dated 06.02.2019 directed the respondent-Police to file the status report whereas in the application moved by the respondent No.3 and his sons for anticipatory bail, this Court vide its order dated 06.02.2019, granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.219 of 2018 subject to the accused furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Certain other terms and conditions were also imposed. 4. Certain other terms and conditions were also imposed. 4. While all this litigation inter see Mohd Rashid and Mohd Akber was pending adjudication in this Court, the differences between the parties came to be settled through Panchayat and compromise was arrived at between the parties. CrlM 886/2019 has been filed by the petitioner Mohd Rashid to place on record a compromise deed and seeking disposal of the petition in the light of the compromise deed. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Mohd Akber states that his client acknowledges the settlement made between the parties and therefore, would not be averse to the disposal of all these petitions in the light of Compromise Deed placed on record by the petitioner Mohd Rashid. He, however, prays that in view of the amicable settlement entered into between the petitioner Mohd Rashid and Mohd Akber, and to allow the parties to live in peace, it would be appropriate if the proceedings in FIR No.219 of 2018 are also quashed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that with the settlement of dispute between Mohd Rashid, the petitioner in CRMC No. 830/2018 and the respondent No.3-Mohd Akber, who is also a petitioner in CRMC No. 50/2019, the request of the parties for disposal of all these petitions, if accepted, would serve the interest of justice. 7. From perusal of the records, it is abundantly clear that the dispute between the parties pertains to the immovable property. Both the parties claim to be co-sharers and in possession of their respective shares. As stated by the learned counsel for the parties that due to some misunderstanding, the matter was taken by both the parties to the Civil Court. One suit was filed by the Mohd Rashid against Mohd Akber and as a counterblast Mohd Akber too filed a Civil Suit against Mohd Rashid. In both the Civil Suits filed by the parties, the Civil Court issued the order of status quo. The parties claim that they would have litigated their rights before the Civil Court, but, in the meanwhile, the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote intervened in the matter and initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC on the ground that he had apprehension of breach of peace on spot concerning the subject property. The parties claim that they would have litigated their rights before the Civil Court, but, in the meanwhile, the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote intervened in the matter and initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC on the ground that he had apprehension of breach of peace on spot concerning the subject property. Be that as it may, the order of the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar), Mankote whereby the subject property was attached became subject matter of Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch and thereafter is before this Court in CRMC No.830/2018. 8. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties in the light of the Compromise Deed placed on record by the medium of CrlM No.886/2016, the order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate as also the order in Revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 15.11.2018 are hereby quashed and it is provided that the parties shall abide by the terms of the Compromise deed/Panchayatnama dated 29.06.2019. 9. So far as CRMC No. 50/2019 is concerned apart from taking into consideration the factum of compromise entered into between the petitioner Mohd Akber and complainant Mohd Rashid, I am of the view that the contents of the FIR if read in their entirety in the context of civil dispute between the parties, do make the commission of offence under Section 435 RPC totally improbable. Admittedly, FIR No.219 of 2018 was lodged by Mohd Rashid only by way of the counterblast to the proceedings launched by the petitioner Mohd Akber. The contents of the FIR clearly reveal that it is filed only by way of counterblast to the FIR, which the petitioner Mohd Akber had filed against Mohd Rashid, i.e., FIR No. 98/2018 and, thus, does not inspire confidence. The allegations are so improbable that is difficult to believe that any such event might have happened, moreso, when we view the story projected in the FIR in the context of civil litigation between the parties concerning the subject land. Furthermore, the parties have now settled their differences amicably. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 219/2018 dated 17.12.2018 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 435 RPC is quashed. This renders the Bail Application No.09/2019 infructuous. 11. Furthermore, the parties have now settled their differences amicably. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 219/2018 dated 17.12.2018 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 435 RPC is quashed. This renders the Bail Application No.09/2019 infructuous. 11. In the result, CRMC No.830/2018 along with all miscellaneous applications and CRMC No.50/2019 along with all miscellaneous applications and Bail App No.09/2019 are disposed of in the terms as above.