Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 333 (JK)

Ghulam Qadir Bhat v. State of J&K

2021-07-15

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of registration of FIR No.124/2019 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B RPC in Police Station, Magam pursuant to the directions of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Magam [“the Trial Magistrate”] dated 02.08.2019 and have invoked the inherent powers of this Court vested by Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Trial Magistrate as also consequential FIR registered in Police Station, Magam. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as gatherable from the order of the Trial Magistrate dated 02.08.2019 are that the complainant-respondent No.2 herein visited the residence of petitioners in the month of December, 2018 for amicably resolving the marriage dispute between his sister and petitioner No.2. In token of having received back some gold items given to petitioner No.2 at the time of nikah ceremony, respondent No.2 executed a receipt in favour of the petitioners. The said receipt, as is alleged by respondent No.2, was forged by the petitioners and certain more items like “the attachie withall items” was inserted in the receipt by an act of forgery. For the criminal breach of trust and cheating done by the petitioners, respondent No.2 had already lodged FIR No.6/2018 on 08.01.2018 with Police Station, Magam. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as CRMC No.11/2018. It is the allegation of respondent No.2 that with a view to persuade this Court to pass interim order of stay of the investigation in FIR No.6/2018, the petitioners filed the forged receipt along with their petition. In the backdrop of these allegations, an application was filed by respondent No.2 before the Trial Magistrate, Magam. The Trial Magistrate vide its order dated 13.07.2019 directed the S.H.O. Police Station, Magam to take necessary action in terms of law. 3. The S.H.O. Police Station, Magam, in response to order dated 13.07.2019, submitted his report. The Court considered the application filed by respondent No.2 in light of the police report and came to the conclusion that prima facie cognizable offence appeared to have been committed. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.08.2019, Trial Magistrate directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Magam to lodge FIR in the matter. In compliance to the order of the Trial Magistrate, impugned FIR has been lodged in the Police Station, Magam. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.08.2019, Trial Magistrate directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Magam to lodge FIR in the matter. In compliance to the order of the Trial Magistrate, impugned FIR has been lodged in the Police Station, Magam. It is this FIR, which the petitioners are aggrieved of and seek to assail the same inter alia on the ground that successive FIR on the basis of same allegations on the basis of which earlier FIR bearing No.06/2018 is already registered in the same Police Station is not maintainable. It is pleaded that for one occurrence there could not be two FIRs, that too, in the same Police Station. Aside, the impugned FIR is also assailed on merits. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Trial Magistrate is well reasoned and spells out grounds for issuance of direction to the police to register an FIR. There are categoric allegations made in the application by respondent No.2 that a receipt purportedly signed by him has been forged and used in the proceedings before this Court. Though, the petitioners have denied the allegation of forgery, yet with a view to bring out the truth in the matter, it is necessary that the police investigate the matter. Taking an overall view of the matter and having regard to the nature of allegations made in the application filed by respondent No.2, the Trial Magistrate found that commission of cognizable offence was disclosed and acting in consonance with law laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , directed the concerned Police Station to register an FIR. 5. Needless to say that registration of FIR is not a proof of guilt of the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR. It is only an information with regard to the alleged commission of cognizable offence, which calls for determination in thorough investigation to be conducted by the police. In these circumstances and without commencing on the merits of the allegations, I am of the view that in the instant case police deserves to be allowed to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the allegation of forgery levelled against the petitioners. 6. In these circumstances and without commencing on the merits of the allegations, I am of the view that in the instant case police deserves to be allowed to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the allegation of forgery levelled against the petitioners. 6. Offence under Section 420 RPC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not made out and, therefore, investigation of the police shall only be restricted to find out as to whether offence under Section 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B RPC have been committed by the petitioners. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is disposed of providing that investigation of FIR No.124/2019 would only restrict to the offence under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC. Let the police conduct a fair and impartial investigation in a professional manner in the matter without any further waste of time. It is expected that investigation in the matter shall be concluded and finalized by the police within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served upon them.