Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 57 (JK)

Roshan Lal Tickoo v. UT of J&K

2025-02-21

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are interconnected to each other, as such are being taken up for disposal together with the consent of appearing counsel for the parties. CRM(M) 112/2024 2. In the instant petition, the petitioners herein have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court enshrined in Section 482 Cr PC, 1973 (for short, the Code) seeking quashing of order dated 16-12- 2023 (for short the impugned order) passed by the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax and Shops Establishment Act, Jammu (for short, the Magistrate) in the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein against the petitioners herein being complaint no. 10736/2023 wherein the Magistrate while passing the impugned order has observed that the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence necessitating investigation and has consequently directed the Crime Branch, Jammu to undertake an investigation thereto in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code. 3. The factual matrix as delineated in the instant petition and the reply filed thereto by respondent 3 is extensive, however, a brief summary of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order and the institution of the instant petition are detailed out hereunder: • The petitioner 1 and respondent 3 herein are the sons of one late Shyam Lal Tickoo who was engaged in the business of selling Kerosene, Light Diesel Oil, and High-Speed Diesel as an agent of Burma-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited [now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)]. Upon the demise of the said Shyam Lal Tickoo, the father of the petitioner 1 and respondent 3 herein, in the year 1966, both parties continued the said business left behind by their father jointly and severely under a partnership firm namely "Shyamlal & Co, Srinagar and Jammu" with its head office at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir. A partnership deed to that effect was executed on 27-07-1968, and subsequently with the intent to modify the terms of the said partnership, a fresh deed was executed on 24-07-1975, effective from 01-08-1967. • According to the petitioner 1 herein since 2016, owing to his ill health, he was unable to manage actively the affairs of the partnership business as a result whereof, during the said period, the business suffered financial losses. • According to the petitioner 1 herein since 2016, owing to his ill health, he was unable to manage actively the affairs of the partnership business as a result whereof, during the said period, the business suffered financial losses. However, upon multiple audits conducted by the firm's Auditors and also an independent Auditor from New Delhi, it was revealed that the firm had incurred losses due to the fraudulent and dishonest acts committed by respondent 3 herein, who, according to the petitioner 1 herein taking undue advantage of his absence, had surreptitiously sold the assets of the firm at an undervalued price with the intention of wrongful gain to the department of the firm, and in furtherance whereof, the respondent 3 herein forged the signatures of the petitioner 1 herein, and upon discovery of said fraudulent acts of the respondent 3 herein, lodged a detailed complaint on 24-02-2022 before Senior Superintendent of Police Crime Branch, Srinagar, pursuant to which a preliminary enquiry/verification bearing No. PVK-41/2022 was initiated. • As per the petitioner 1 herein, as a counterblast to the filing of the said complaint, respondent 3 herein lodged a false and frivolous complaint under sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471, read with sections 34/129-B of the Indian Penal Code, before Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu being respondent 2 herein, consequent to which the Special Crime Wing of Crime Branch, Jammu initiated a preliminary enquiry/verification bearing no. PVJ-57/2023 • The petitioner 1 herein, however, sought transfer of the aforesaid complaint filed by respondent 3 herein to Crime Branch, Srinagar while submitting a representation before respondent 2 herein and pending consideration of the said representation, the petitioner 1 herein, through his attorney being petitioner 3 herein, instituted a petition being number WP(C) 1474/2023 before this court, seeking a direction for transfer and clubbing of the aforesaid preliminary Enquiries/ Verification bearing no. 41/2022 and 57/2023, and while issuing a notice therein the said petition on 09-07-2023, this court directed the concerned respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner 1 herein. 41/2022 and 57/2023, and while issuing a notice therein the said petition on 09-07-2023, this court directed the concerned respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner 1 herein. • Subsequently, during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the Crime Branch Headquarters, Jammu, vide order dated 08-08-2023, accepted the aforesaid representation of the petitioner 1 herein and ordered the transfer and clubbing of Preliminary Enquiry 57/2023 with Preliminary Enquiry 41/2022, pending with the Crime Branch, Srinagar, Kashmir, whereupon consequently the aforesaid WP(C) No. 1474/2023 came to be dismissed as infructuous by this Court in terms of order dated 18-08-2023. 4. The grievance projected by the petitioners herein is that despite having knowledge of the transfer of PV 57/2023 to the Crime Branch, Kashmir, respondent-3 herein suppressed the said material fact and instituted an application under Section 156(3) of the Code before the Magistrate and impleaded respondent-2 herein alone as party respondent while seeking direction for registration of an FIR by the Crime Branch, Jammu against the petitioners herein and upon entertaining the said application, the Magistrate sought a report from respondent-2 herein who vide report dated 27-09-2023 categorically stated that the complaint of respondent-3 herein had been assigned to the then Inquiry Officer namely Inspector Bhattu Chowdhary for preliminary probe, however, during the course of the said inquiry, the Crime Branch Headquarters, Jammu, vide order dated 08-08-2023, directed the transfer and clubbing of said inquiry 57/2023 with inquiry 41/2022, considering the similarity in the nature of allegations in both the complaints. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondent 2 herein, wherein the factual position regarding the transfer of the Inquiry 57/2023 to Crime Branch Kashmir for Joint Inquiry with Inquiry41/2022 has been reiterated. 6. The respondent 3 herein has filed a detailed reply to the petition and has denied the allegations of wilfully suppressing the factum of transfer and clubbing of Inquiry 57/2023 with Inquiry 41/2022 and it is contended by respondent 3 that he was unaware about the order of transfer of the crime branch dated 08.08.2023 and only came to know about the same upon the filing of the instant petition. It has been further stated by respondent 3 in reply that the alleged forgery came to his notice only when petitioner 1 herein, through his attorney petitioner 3 herein, filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, having annexed a forged partnership deed dated 13-01-2015 therewith which prompted him to file a complaint before respondent 2 herein, and upon the failure of respondent 2 herein to register an FIR in this regard, invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code by instituting a complaint. Respondent 3 has additionally raised a legal plea in the reply that an offence is to be investigated within the territorial jurisdiction where it is alleged to have been committed. It is significant to mention here that respondent 3 has also raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the same having been filed through an attorney is not maintainable, and in this connection has relied upon the judgment of the Apex court passed in case titled as “T. C. Mathai and another vs. District and Sessions Judge reported in AIR 1999 SC 1385 as also the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in case titled as “Amrinder Singh @ Raja vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ” reported in (2022) SCC Online Delhi 24. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 7. In the first instance this court deems it appropriate to address to the aforesaid objection of respondent 3 qua the maintainability of the instant petition, in that, if such objection is allowed, the merits of the case need not be adverted to in that event. The contention of the respondent 3 is that the instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code arising out of a criminal complaint filed by him before the Magistrate, as such, the culpability being personal in nature of the accused/petitioner 1 herein it is only he, the accused/petitioner 1 herein, who can question the same. The contention of the respondent 3 is that the instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code arising out of a criminal complaint filed by him before the Magistrate, as such, the culpability being personal in nature of the accused/petitioner 1 herein it is only he, the accused/petitioner 1 herein, who can question the same. The aforesaid proposition of law as is pressed into service by the respondent 3 is no doubt correct, however, the same may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the case at hand no doubt the petitioner 1 herein is represented by his son as his attorney nonetheless petitioners 2 and 3 who also figure as accused persons in the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein, are petitioners themselves in the instant petition and not through attorney, therefore the said principle of law cannot be made applicable to the instant case, even if, the petition might suffer from a legal defect so far as the petitioner 1 is concerned, yet there is no such legal defect or disability to entertain the same vis-à-vis petitioners 2 and 3 herein and the outcome of the instant petition would not thus be any different. Thus, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is quite distinguishable as in T. C. Mathai supra an agent was seeking permission to become a pleader for accused persons which permission was turned down, and in Amrinder Singh supra an application seeking permission to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of Code was filed seeking quashing of an FIR, the charge sheet and all the proceedings arising therefrom including the proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent 3 is turned down and the petition is thus held to be maintainable. 8. It is significant to mention here that Section 156(3) of the Code, even though precise, yet confers vast and extensive power upon the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent 3 is turned down and the petition is thus held to be maintainable. 8. It is significant to mention here that Section 156(3) of the Code, even though precise, yet confers vast and extensive power upon the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation. A Magistrate while exercising power under Section 156(3) of the Code can direct registration of an FIR and investigation if an application filed before him discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and essentially confers a discretion upon the Magistrate to direct police investigation though the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrary. Not only for registration of FIR, the Magistrate can also pass appropriate orders in this regard for ensuring that a fair investigation is conducted by the police. It is settled law that even if a Magistrate directs investigation in the matter, the same presupposes registration of an FIR and consequent investigation thereto. The Apex Court in case titled as Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , while dealing with the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code, has, however, observed that in certain cases including commercial disputes, before registration of an FIR, a preliminary inquiry may be made. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, the petitioner 1 herein, as is noticed in the preceding paras, has lodged a complaint against respondent 3 herein and others before the Crime Branch, Kashmir wherein a preliminary inquiry under PVK 41/2022 is underway. The said complaint pertains to the alleged illegal transactions undertaken by respondent 3 herein and other accused persons in the course of business operations of the partnership firm jointly owned by petitioner 1 herein and the respondent 3 herein. Respondent 3 in his response has stated that all such transactions alleged to have been illegally made by him were in fact made by him with the consent of petitioner 1 herein, who is stated to have received the proceeds therefrom. 10. Respondent 3 in his response has stated that all such transactions alleged to have been illegally made by him were in fact made by him with the consent of petitioner 1 herein, who is stated to have received the proceeds therefrom. 10. It is an admitted fact that respondent 3 herein, conversely, too, has filed a complaint against petitioner 1 herein alleging fabrication of a partnership deed purportedly on 13-01-2015 between himself and his wife by the petitioners and other accused persons, having further alleged therein that another partnership deed allegedly executed between petitioner 1 and his wife, petitioner 2 herein, was also got forged by them, while asserting further that relying on these alleged fabricated partnership deeds, both of which were accepted as valid by BPCL, the petitioners herein have procured the supply of petroleum products, those were otherwise meant to be supplied to the original firm. 11. It is significant to mention here that the respondent-3 herein has not specified the exact date in the complaint on which the alleged forged documents/partnership deeds were accepted by the BPCL and the petroleum products were diverted by it to the purportedly fictitious firms. Indisputably, the alleged forged partnership deeds date back to the year 2015, whereas the complaint stands filed by the respondent-3 herein only in the year 2023 that too subsequent to the complaint lodged by the petitioner 1 herein against him in the year 2022. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present petition, an application being CM No. 1381 of 2024 came to be filed by responder 3 herein for placing on record certified copies of the status report(s) filed by the Special Wing (Crime Branch). Another application being CM No. 1474 of 2024 also came to be filed by the petitioner herein for placing on record certain documents, which CM was allowed by this court vide order dated 20.9.2024 after no objection was tendered by the counsel for the respondents. The said documents placed on record include two allegedly forged partnership deeds dated 13-01-2015, one executed between the petitioner 1 and 2, mentioning the name and title of their partnership concern as “M/S Shyam Lall & Co., Bemina” and the other between respondent 3 and his wife, namely Indu, of the partnership concern, namely “M/S Syhyam Lall & Co. Chattabal”. The said documents placed on record include two allegedly forged partnership deeds dated 13-01-2015, one executed between the petitioner 1 and 2, mentioning the name and title of their partnership concern as “M/S Shyam Lall & Co., Bemina” and the other between respondent 3 and his wife, namely Indu, of the partnership concern, namely “M/S Syhyam Lall & Co. Chattabal”. Another set of documents include two dispensing pumps and selling licenses, both dated 17-10-1978, one favouring petitioners 1 and 2 herein and the other favouring respondent 3 and his above-named wife. Besides the above documents, the petitioners have also placed on record a sale agreement dated 15-06-2017 executed between respondent 3 herein, his above-named wife, and one person, namely Syed Ahmed Arsalan, son of Syed Asghar Ali, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, in which sale agreement it has been mentioned that respondent 3 herein and his wife are the licensees of BPCL and have agreed to sell their petrol pump situated at Chattabal under the name and style of “M/S Shyam Lal Chattabal to the said Syed Ahmed Arsalan. On record has also been placed a partnership deed executed by respondent 3 herein with the said Syed Ahmed Arsalan for the running of the license of petrol pump, namely Mr. Shyam Lall and Co. Chattabal, which partnership stands registered by Sub-Registrar Srinagar on 10-08- 2017, followed by a supplementary partnership deed dated 22-10- 2019. It is significant to note here that at some places in the said documents/deeds the respondent 3 herein has mentioned the name and style of the business as “M/s Shyam Lall and Co. Chattabal”and at some places as “M/s Shyam Lall and Co.” 13. It is significant to note here that at some places in the said documents/deeds the respondent 3 herein has mentioned the name and style of the business as “M/s Shyam Lall and Co. Chattabal”and at some places as “M/s Shyam Lall and Co.” 13. Record would reveal and as has been noticed above that two status reports have been placed on record filed by Special Wing (Crime Branch), Kashmir by respondent 3 herein along with CM 1381 of 2024, amongst which status reports, one had been filed before the court of 2 nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar and another before the Court of City Judge Srinagar and in the report dated 8- 11-2023 filed before the Court of City Judge Srinagar, it has been stated by the Crime Branch that during the preliminary verification it was prima facie found that the sale of properties of respondent 3 herein was made with the consent of petitioner 1 herein, but regarding the allegation of embezzlement and fraud by respondent 3 herein and others, a forensic audit was required to be conducted and that the Crime Branch is arranging the said forensic audit for the purpose. With regard to partnership deed(s)alleged to have been forged, it has been stated therein the said report that same had been prepared vis-a-vis Petrol Pump at Chattabal in favour of respondent 3 herein and his wife. In the status report filed before the court of 2 nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, the Crime Branch with respect to preliminary verification/inquiry 57/2023 has stated that the allegations in the complaint have been prima facie established during probe and has given a reference of the impugned order. 14. All the aforesaid aspects, thus beyond doubt, can be said to have necessitated preliminary verification /enquiry by the Crime Branch, which indisputably is presently underway, and the record of the case, as also the manner in which the preliminary inquiry/ verification has been conducted, do not suggest or reveal any undue delay or inaction on the part of the Crime Branch, which would have warranted the filing of the application under Section 156(3) of the code by the respondent 3 herein. 15. 15. Further perusal of the record reveals that upon receipt of the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein under section 156(3) of the code, the Magistrate had called for a report from respondent 2 herein who in unequivocal terms stated that the complaint PVJ- 57/2023 had been assigned to the then Enquiry Officer, Inspector Bhattu Choudhary for preliminary investigation, however, during the inquiry, vide letter dated 8-8-2023, the complaint was transferred and directed to be clubbed with PVK- 41/2022 in view of the similarity of the allegations in both the complaints. 16. Here a reference to SO 232 issued by Government of J&K Home Department dated 09-05-2022 being relevant and germane to the controversy becomes imperative herein: NOTIFICATION Jammu, the 9 of May, 2022 S.0 232. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Government hereby declares the offices of the following wings of the Crime Branch, J&K, as the Police Stations; namely: i. Special Crime Wing (SCW), Jammu; ii. Special Crime Wing (SCW), Srinagar; iii. Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Jammu; iv. Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Srinagar; v. Cyber Crime Investigation Center for Excellence (CICE), Jammu; vi. Cyber Crime Investigation Center for Excellence (CICE), Srinagar. The Superintendent(s) of Police, posted in the offices at i-iv and the Deputy Superintendents of Police, in respect of offices at v & vi shall be the Station House Officer (SHO) of their respective Police Station. The above six (06) Police Stations shall for the purpose of registration and investigation of offences, specified against each in the corresponding column (3) of the Annexure to this notification, exercise territorial jurisdiction within their respective units at the divisional level and the offences shall be investigated on the orders of the Head of the Crime Branch. Apart from the offences specified in the Annexure ibid, any other case(s), as may be deemed necessary, may also be referred by the Government or the Director General of Police, J&K to the Head of the Crime Branch for registration and investigation by the respective Police Station, mentioned above. Consequent upon this, notification SRO-202 dated 03.06.1999 and SRO-204 dated 27.07.2009 shall stand superseded from the date of issuance of this notification. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequent upon this, notification SRO-202 dated 03.06.1999 and SRO-204 dated 27.07.2009 shall stand superseded from the date of issuance of this notification. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. A bare perusal of the SO supra reveals that the Crime Branch, J&K, is one single entity/organization consisting of various wings, including Special Crime Wing (SCW) Srinagar, and Special Crime Wing (SCW), Jammu, which had been designated as police station for the purpose of registration and investigation of offense, authorized to exercise jurisdiction at Divisional-level to be investigated on the orders of Head of the Crime Branch thus making it clear that a Magistrate exercising territorial jurisdiction over the area in Kashmir Division can direct the investigation by SCW Srinagar only and the Magistrate exercising territorial jurisdiction over the area in Jammu Division can direct investigation of SCW Jammu only and since the investigation in the case presupposes the registration of an FIR, therefore, a Magistrate in each Division can direct the registration of said FIR or pass an order to ensure fair investigation. 17. The case in hand, however, has distinct features, as admittedly, no FIR has been registered herein, but only a preliminary inquiry/ verification has been ordered by the Head of the Crime Branch and is under way. Thus, in such a situation, the Magistrate could have sought a status report from the Head of the Crime Branch vis-a-vis the preliminary verification conducted in PVK-41/2022 and PVJ-57/2023, filed by petitioner 1 and respondent 3 herein, respectively. 18. No doubt, as has been noticed above, it is the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code who has ample powers to direct conduct of an investigation when an application is filed before him under section 156(3) of the Code prima facie disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, however, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Magistrate seems to have acted with undue haste in passing the impugned order. The Magistrate, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, instead ought to have sought status report regarding the said preliminary inquiry/verification conducted by the Crime Branch to ascertain whether the same was being conducted properly and fairly and that, as to whether a direction for investigation under Section 156(3) was warranted, and only if the Magistrate, after calling and perusing of said status report, would have been satisfied that the preliminary inquiry/ verification was not being conducted properly or had been conducted and a prima facie cognizable offence made out, but no FIR had been registered, he could have directed registration of an FIR. The Magistrate, however, having not done so has grossly erred in precipitously directing an investigation, which, as has been stated above, necessarily presupposes the registration of FIR. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that when the Crime Branch Srinagar was seized of and had almost completed the preliminary inquiry/verification in the complaints, direction passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code by way of impugned order was unwarranted. 20. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed as a consequence whereof the impugned order dated 16-12-2023 passed by the Magistrate in the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein against the petitioner herein bearing complaint no. 10736/2023 is quashed while dismissing the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein before the Magistrate. It is made clear that nothing herein should be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the complaint pending inquiry/verification before the Crime Branch. WP (Crl) 41/2024: 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of Cr PC, seeking quashment of Order no. CHQ/Clt/J- 217/2023/14336-37 dated 8-08-2023 passed by respondent 1 herein, wherein preliminary verification being PVJ-57/2023, initiated upon the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the private respondent herein, has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Srinagar for holding of joint inquiry/verification with complaint no. PVK-41/2022. 2. CHQ/Clt/J- 217/2023/14336-37 dated 8-08-2023 passed by respondent 1 herein, wherein preliminary verification being PVJ-57/2023, initiated upon the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the private respondent herein, has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Srinagar for holding of joint inquiry/verification with complaint no. PVK-41/2022. 2. The challenge has been thrown by the petitioner to order dated 08.08.2023, primarily on the ground that the alleged offence had been committed by the private respondents within the jurisdiction of Crime Branch Jammu and the entire evidence lies there, therefore, the transfer of the investigation to Crime Branch, Srinagar without notice to the petitioner herein and at his back is actuated with mala fides and is arbitrary on the part of respondent 1 herein. 3. The facts pleaded by the petitioner herein in the petition are similar to what has been pleaded by him in the objections filed to the petition filed by respondents 4 and 5 being the clubbed CRM(M) 112/2024 supra. It is noteworthy that upon filing of the complaint by the petitioner herein against the private respondents herein, the respondent Crime Branch had not registered an FIR or initiated an investigation therein, but had ordered a preliminary enquiry in tune and line with the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of “Lalita Kumari” supra, in that, the complaint having arisen out of a commercial dispute. 4. It is also worthwhile to mention here that a preliminary inquiry in law is different and distinct from investigation and the purpose of such preliminary inquiry initiated upon receipt of a complaint is to quickly assess credibility and genuineness of the complaint before formally registering an FIR, and the scope of such inquiry is very limited, focused on covering basic facts to determine if a cognisable offence has been committed, and the said preliminary inquiry may lead to the registration of an FIR if the complaint is deemed credible, or it may be closed, if it is found to be frivolous or mala fide. On the other hand, the investigation begins upon registration of an FIR and the purpose of such investigation is to thoroughly investigate a case, gather evidence, and identify the accused involved in the commission of the offense. The scope of such investigation is comprehensive and detailed, involving various investigative techniques like collecting evidence, examining and questioning witnesses, etc. etc. On the other hand, the investigation begins upon registration of an FIR and the purpose of such investigation is to thoroughly investigate a case, gather evidence, and identify the accused involved in the commission of the offense. The scope of such investigation is comprehensive and detailed, involving various investigative techniques like collecting evidence, examining and questioning witnesses, etc. etc. and conclusion of such investigation may result into filing of a charge sheet before a competent court of law if sufficient evidence is collected, or closure of the case if no evidence is found. 5. Reverting back to the case in hand and as has been noticed somewhere hereinabove, upon filing of the complaint by the petitioner herein, the respondent, Crime Branch, initiated a preliminary verification/inquiry under PVJ-57/2023 to verify the genuineness of the complaint and during such verification, a representation was filed by respondent 4 herein followed by a petition before this court seeking transfer of the said preliminary enquiry/verification being PVJ-57/2023 to Srinagar Wing of the Crime Branch on the ground that he, the respondent 4 herein had earlier filed a complaint being PVK-41/2022 pertaining to the transactions of the partnership business of which the petitioner herein is also a partner and the complaint of the petitioner herein was vis-à-vis the fabrication of the partnership deed(s) regarding the issues of the same partnership firm, therefore having regard to the said facts and circumstances, it would have been expedient to conduct a preliminary inquiry /verification of both the complaints together and having been rightly done so in terms of impugned order dated 08.08.2023. 6. It is neither forthcoming from the record in general and the petition in hand in particular, nor has the petitioner herein pleaded in the petition as to how the transfer of the preliminary inquiry/verification from Jammu to Srinagar has caused any prejudice to him, more so, in view of the status filed by the Crime Branch respondent herein before the court of 2 nd Additional Munsiff Srinagar which suggests that the preliminary inquiry/verification therein the said complaint being PVJ-57/2023 is almost complete. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition cannot, but be said to have been filed by the petitioner herein without any cause and in absence of breach of any of his legal, statutory or fundamental rights. 8. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed.