Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mandeep Singh vs Ut Of J&K on 31 March, 2023
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 04
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode Srinagar)
CRM(M) No. 505/2021
CrlM No. 1640/2021
CrlM No. 582/2022
Pronounced on: 31.03.2023
Mandeep Singh .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner seeks quashment of FIR bearing No. 213/2021 dated 01.07.2021 registered with Police Station, Samba in offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506/427 IPC on the order passed by the court of learned Additional Munsiff, JMIC, Samba in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on the presentation of application by the respondent No.2-Gari Lal against the petitioner herein and some unknown persons.
2. The respondents have appeared in the matter and contested the petition.
The respondent No.1 has also filed reply to the present petition.
3. The submission made in the petition is that the FIR filed against the petitioner herein is false and frivolous one and also malafide. It is 2 CRM(M) No.505/2021 submitted that the application filed by the respondent No.2 which became the basis for registration of FIR against the petitioner and the application which the said respondent filed before Police Station, Samba do not reconcile with each other. The precise submission made in the petition is that whereas the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C refers to two incidents, one having taken place on 08.05.2021 and another one thereafter, the application filed by the respondent No.2 before the Police Station, Samba pertains to one occurrence only of 08.5.2021.
4. The respondent No.2 has also raised a complaint against the petitioner and the proceedings are pending against him under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C before the Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Samba. It is on the aforesaid ground also that the petitioner seeks quashment of the FIR.
5. Mr. R.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has indeed argued in line with the averments contained in the petition and submits that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and is required to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned Senior counsel appearing for the private respondent has argued that the inherent powers of the court cannot be exercised in the case in hand on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The FIR is required to be investigated by the police agency as the petitioner has no case to set up in the present petition.
7. It requires no reiteration that the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C can be pressed into service in case the court is of the view that the continuance of the proceedings in consequence to the lodging of FIR shall be sheer abuse 3 CRM(M) No.505/2021 of process of law requiring quashment of FIR itself. The court will not exercise its power under the aforesaid section on the mere whims of the petitioner. The court has to be convinced that the FIR lodged against the petitioner herein is prima facie false or that the contents of the FIR do not otherwise make out the offences in which the petitioner has been roped in.
8. The court does not find any averment in the petition that no offence is otherwise made out against the petitioner on the strength of the contents mentioned in the FIR in question. The main ground taken in the petition is the malafide on the part of the respondent No.2 in filing the petition.
9. The court is not convinced of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the FIR registered against the petitioner and the earlier application annexed with the petition and marked as Annexure II can be the reason to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner even it is filed by the respondent. The application filed by the respondent No.2 before the SHO Police Station, Samba reveals of one incident where it is stated that the petitioner Muna engineered attack upon him when he was loading the trolley with the sand in the intervening night of 08.05.2021 whereas FIR states of the incident of 08.05.2021 as well as of another happening later in time. The second occurrence as mentioned in the FIR took place when the respondent No.2 herein was on his way to lodge the report against the petitioner herein of the first incident.
10. The fine distinction being tried to make out by the petitioner between the contents of the FIR and the earlier application filed by the respondent before the Police Station, Samba does not sustain the argument of 4 CRM(M) No.505/2021 malafide on the part of the petitioner for the purposes of the present petition. It may be noticed that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C which was the basis for registration of FIR has given detailed account as to how the two occurrence took place. The proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and the subsequent lodging of FIR on the initiation of said proceedings cannot be termed as abuse of process of law.
11. It is also pleaded that the respondent No.2 has been challaned by the Geology and Mining department for unlawful extraction of sand and the FIR in question is also outcome of the same. The court is at loss to understand as to how the proceedings, if any, initiated against the respondent-Gari Lal by the Geology and Mining Department is connected with the FIR in question. The court is not to assume certain facts like the one pleaded above that the alleged illegal activity of the respondent No.2 culminating into certain proceedings by the department resulted into FIR against the petitioner herein as vengeance. Likewise the proceedings before Executive Magistrate are independent one and cannot be connected with the FIR in question. It is always convenient to plead malafide to invoke inherent powers of this court but the facts should provide room for such plea. The same are conspicuously missing in the petition in hand.
12. The court is of the view that the lodging of FIR or the proceedings initiated on the basis of said FIR cannot be said to be an abuse of process of law in the given circumstances requiring any interference from this court at this juncture. It may be mentioned herein that as per the report 5 CRM(M) No.505/2021 filed by respondent No.1 offence under Section 325 IPC has also been added against the petitioner herein on the basis of the medical report of the complainant in the FIR under discussion.
13. The petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu:
31.03.2023 Shammi Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No