Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 614 (JK)

Ramesh Sharma v. State of J&K

2021-11-23

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJNESH OSWAL, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR bearing No. 76/2015 dated 16.05.2015 registered with Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu for commission of offences under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 RPC. 2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the sister of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 namely Ashish Sharma was solemnized with Deepak Sharma who is the son of the respondent No. 3. It is further stated that because of the marital discord between Deepak Sharma and Ashish Sharma i.e. sister of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4, Ashish Sharma had filed criminal complaint under section 498-A and 109 RPC before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and thereafter, the same was transferred to the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. The learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu vide order dated 05.05.2015 forwarded the said complaint to the Incharge, Women Cell, Canal Road Jammu for registration of FIR against Deepak Sharma and his family members including the respondent No. 3. It is further stated that on 09.05.2015, an FIR bearing No. 22/2015 was registered against Deepak Sharma and his family members including the respondent No. 3 for commission of offences under sections 498-A and 109 RPC. It is further averred that the son of the respondent No. 3 namely Deepak Sharma had already filed a petition under section 13 Hindu Marriage Act against Ashish Sharma that is subjudice before the court of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu and further in order to wreck vengeance, the respondent No. 3 has lodged false and frivolous FIR on 16.05.2015 in which dated of occurrence has been shown as 14.05.2015. 3. The FIR has been impugned primarily on the ground that the same was registered as counter blast to the FIR that was lodged by the sister of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 and that ingredients of offences under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 RPC are absolutely missing in the FIR. 4. Response was not filed by the respondents including the respondent No. 3 who though was duly served but she neither filed the response nor appeared before this Court. 5. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 and that ingredients of offences under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 RPC are absolutely missing in the FIR. 4. Response was not filed by the respondents including the respondent No. 3 who though was duly served but she neither filed the response nor appeared before this Court. 5. In view of the non-filing of the response, official respondent was directed to produce the CD file and the same is produced before this Court today for its perusal. 6. Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate has reiterated the submissions made in the petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of offences as such, the same cannot be quashed. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. From the record, it is evident that Ashish Sharma i.e. sister of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 because of the marital discord had filed a complaint under section 498-A and 109 RPC against her husband, parents in law and sister of her husband and on the basis of said complaint, pursuant to the directions of court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu vide order dated 05.05.2015, FIR bearing No. 22/2015 dated 09.05.2015 for commission of offences under section 498-A and 109 RPC was registered against the above mentioned persons. 10. Further from the record, it is evident that the FIR impugned was lodged by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of occurrence alleged to have taken place on 14.05.2015. 11. A perusal of the FIR impugned reveals that on 14.05.2015 at about 05:00 PM, the petitioners entered into the residential house of the respondent No. 3 and used filthy language and also assaulted the respondent No. 3 and her daughter and on raising hue and cry, some neighbours came on spot and the petitioners ran away. There is no specific allegation in the FIR as to which of the petitioners assaulted the respondent No. 3 and her daughter. 12. I have gone through the CD file also and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the respondent No. 3 or his daughter has suffered any injury and further in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 3 never wanted to undergo medical examination as she did not suffer any external injury. 13. 12. I have gone through the CD file also and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the respondent No. 3 or his daughter has suffered any injury and further in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 3 never wanted to undergo medical examination as she did not suffer any external injury. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that the sister of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 has lodged the FIR on 09.05.2015 and after seven days, the respondent No. 3 lodged the FIR against the petitioners and the contents of that FIR are also very vague in nature which demonstrates that the impugned FIR was lodged just as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the sister of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and daughter of the petitioner No. 4 and further to harass them. 14. The case of the petitioners is securely covered by the cases mentioned at serial No. 7 of judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case titled State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 AIR (SC) 604. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive and malice. As such, the FIR impugned is quashed. 16. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 17. CD file is returned back to the Investigating Officer in the open Court. Allowed