Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 608 (JK)

Naveen Mahajan v. State of J&K

2021-11-18

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJNESH OSWAL, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 636/2018 dated 11.11.2018, registered with Police Station, Rajouri for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 354 RPC on the following grounds:- a. That the respondent No. 2, who is the sister in-law of the petitioner, being the first cousin of the wife of the petitioner, has lodged the FIR just to harass the petitioner, as the husband of the respondent No. 2 attacked the petitioner on 14.10.2018, as a result of which FIR No. 449/ 2018 under Sections 341, 307, 324 and 323 RPC was registered against him and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet too had been filed against the husband of the respondent No. 2 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court'). As such, the FIR was lodged just to harass the petitioner and to force him to withdraw the charge-sheet filed against the husband of the respondent No. 2. b. That the bare perusal of the FIR impugned would reveal that no offence under Sections 323, 341 and 354 RPC has been made out. 2. The respondent No. 1 has filed the response, in which it is stated that on 11.11.2018, the complainant, i.e., respondent No. 2 lodged a written report at Police Station, Rajouri against the petitioner that she along with her brother in-law was going to Jawahar Nagar Market for domestic work and when she reached in front of Jawahar Nagar Temple, the petitioner restrained her way, used filthy language, caught her hand and threatened to kill her husband. On hue and cry of the complainant, some people reached on spot and rescued her from the clutches of the alleged accused person. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 636/2018 under Sections 341, 323 and 354 RPC was registered at Police Station, Rajouri. 3. The respondent No. 2 has not filed the response. 4. During the course of hearing, the respondent No. 1 was directed to produce the CD File and the same was produced by the learned Government Advocate. 5. Mr. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 636/2018 under Sections 341, 323 and 354 RPC was registered at Police Station, Rajouri. 3. The respondent No. 2 has not filed the response. 4. During the course of hearing, the respondent No. 1 was directed to produce the CD File and the same was produced by the learned Government Advocate. 5. Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the FIR impugned was lodged only to force the petitioner to withdraw the charge-sheet filed against the husband of the respondent No. 2, as the husband of the respondent No. 2 had attacked the petitioner and further, that no offence is made out from the mere perusal of the FIR. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned GA, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that the FIR was registered after the respondent No. 2 lodged the written FIR and as per the investigation, the offences mentioned above are established against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Mohd. Aamir Awan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, too argued on the similar lines. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously. 9. Before appreciating the rival controversies, it would be apt to take note of the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 and the same is reproduced as under:- "To The Station House Officer, Rajouri. Sub:- Request for lodging complaint against Mr. Naveen Mahajan for threatening and disrespectful behaviour publically in Jawahar Nagar Market. R/Sir, In reference to the subject cited above, I Sonia Kohli W/o Suneet Mahajan was doing purchasing in the market with my brother in-law. As I reached in front of Jawahar Nagar Temple, the man in question obstructed my way and used abusive language, he threatened me that I will kill your husband and you will bear the consequences. He caught me from the hand publically, which is fit case of molestation along with threatening and disrespectful behaviour to a female. It is pertinent to mention here that some of the eye witnesses, who intervened and saved me from the clutches of the evil man. It is quite apprehended that he may do the wild attempt again. So, it is requested to your goodself to lodge complaint against him to save me and life of my husband from the man in question. It is quite apprehended that he may do the wild attempt again. So, it is requested to your goodself to lodge complaint against him to save me and life of my husband from the man in question. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sonia Mahajan W/o Suneet Mahajan R/o Ward No. 6, Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri." 10. Respondent No. 2 has not been able to dispute the fact that her husband figures as an accused in FIR No. 449/2018 registered under Sections 341, 307, 324 and 323 RPC, in which the petitioner was a victim. 11. In view of the nature of the allegations leveled in the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the FIR registered against the husband of the respondent No. 2 and also to force the petitioner to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the husband of the respondent No. 2. Further, so far as offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, it provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 12. From the nature of the allegations, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he held the hands of the respondent No. 2 and no further act has been attributed to the petitioner that can result into outraging the modesty of the respondent No. 2. As such, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. More so, the offence under Section 323 RPC is also not made out. It requires to be noted that initially the respondent No. 2 had stated in the FIR that she was accompanied by her brother in-law in a market, but subsequently, she stated that her mother in-law was accompanying her in the market. 13. More so, the offence under Section 323 RPC is also not made out. It requires to be noted that initially the respondent No. 2 had stated in the FIR that she was accompanied by her brother in-law in a market, but subsequently, she stated that her mother in-law was accompanying her in the market. 13. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the nature of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner points to an inescapable conclusion that the said FIR has been lodged by the respondent No. 2 with a malice against the petitioner, who was a victim of murderous assault by the husband of the respondent No. 2 and this is a fit case, in which indulgence can be shown by this Court for quashing the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, " State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335." 14. In view of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR impugned, i.e., FIR No. 636/2018 dated 11.11.2018, registered with Police Station, Rajouri for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 354 RPC is quashed. 15. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 16. CD File is handed over to the learned GA in the open Court.