Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Smt. Seema Verma And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 28 October, 2017
Author: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Petition u/s 561-A No.93/2015 &MP No.110/2015
Date of decision:-28.10.2017
Smt. Seema Verma & anr. V. State and anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Appearing Counsel:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate &
Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG for respondent No.1.
Mr. L. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
i. Whether approved for
reporting in Press/Media : Yes/No/Optional
ii. Whether to be reported in
Digest/Journal : Yes/No
1. Through the medium of instant petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.13/2015 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC against the petitioners by respondent No.1 at the behest of respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in petition that petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are wife & husband. Respondent No.2 was a close friend of petitioner No.2 and had also engaged petitioner No.2 as his counsel in taxation related cases. It is submitted that M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. were earlier the tenant of petitioner no.2, however in the year 2008, the petitioner no.2 due to his personal need got vacated his premises from M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd and on the request of respondent no.2 got the representative of M//S A2Z 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 1 of 25 Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. introduced with respondent no. 2 for the purpose of letting out his house no.74/8 situated in Trikuta Nagar, Jammu which stands in the name of his wife and mother vide agreement to sell dated 06.08.2005. That respondent no.2 thereafter approached petitioner no.2 and told him that aforesaid Company i.e. M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. was reluctant in taking his premises on rent as the respondent no.2 was not having clear title/ documents with regard to aforesaid house and without which the said compnay was reluctant to execute the rent deed. However, respondent no.2 requested the petitioner no.2 that the company would agree to execute the rend deed with petitioner no.1 i.e. wife of the petitioner no.2 keeping in view their past relation with the said company and insisted the petitioner no.1 to execute the rent deed vis-a-vis the premises at Trikuta Nagar in her name. It is submitted that keeping in view the good relations, the rent deed dated 27.11.2008 came to be executed between petitioner no.1 and M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. It is submitted that the amount which was received by petitioner no.1 as rent from M/S A2Z Maintenance Engineering Service Ltd. by way of cheque payment used to be immediately reimbursed to the wife and mother of respondent no.2 by way of account payee cheque as requested by respondent no.2.
3. That amount of monthly rent which was received by the petitioner no.1 from M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. stood completely reimbursed to the wife and mother of respondent no.2 by way of account payee cheque till July 2009 and thereafter petitioner no.1 wrote a letter to the Deputy Manager, M/S A2Z Maintenance Engineering Service Ltd. stating therein that from July 2009 onwards the drafts of cheque vis-à-vis rent of house no.74/8 Trikuta Nagar Jammu would be made directly in the name of wife and mother of respondent no.2 and also requested to execute fresh lease deed/Rent deed with wife and mother of respondent no.2 and also enclosed a copy of new rent deed duly signed by mother and wife of 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 2 of 25 respondent no.2. It is submitted that in the month of July 2010, the respondent no.2 approached the petitioners and told them that from July 2009 onwards, M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Lt had not paid him the rent as they were insisting the respondent no.2 either to get them clear title/documents of aforesaid house, so that fresh Rent deed could be executed with respondent no.2 or his mother or his wife or to continue the earlier relationship as was created vide Rent deed dated 27.11.2008 with petitioner no.1. It was on the hot persuasion and persistence of respondent no.2, the petitioner no.1 again executed Rent deed with dated 27.07.2010 vis-à-vis aforesaid house commencing w.e.f. 01.08.2009 and accordingly the withheld Rent came to be released in the name of petitioner no.1 by M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Servie Ltd, which was again reimbursed to respondent no.2 by petitioner no.1.
4. That M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd further executed Rent deed with petitioner no.1 dated 01.08.2010 for a short period of 2 months as M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. had declared and made it clear to the petitioners and respondent No.2 that they would be vacating the premises after a period of two months, and thereafter M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd vacated the premises of respondent no.2 and shited at new premises at house no.44, Sector-1A Extension, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu and also executed Rent deed dated 27.09.2010 with their new landlord. It is submitted that finally in the month of October 2010, the relationship of petitioner no.1 and M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd came to an end and so the internal arrangement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 also came to an end. It is stated that the Rent paid to the petitioner no.1 by M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. was timely and duly paid back to respondent no.2 or his mother and wife.
5. That the relation between petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.2 got strained in the year 2013, resultantly respondent no.2, in order to harass the 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 3 of 25 petitioners, filed a false and frivolous civil suit for recovery by manipulating false facts against the petitioners, wherein respondent no.2 has categorically admitted the paying of Rent of aforesaid premises to mother and wife of respondent no.2 through petitioner no.1. It is submitted that respondent no.2 also admitted the issuance of letter to Deputy Manager, M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Serve Ltd., by petitioner no.1, wherein the petitioner no.1 had requested Deputy Manager/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd., to directly pay Rent from July 2009 onwards in the name of the mother and wife of respondent no.2. It is submitted that it is crystal clear that respondent no.2 was in conscious knowledge that the relationship of landlord and tenant was created by and between petitioner no.1 as landlady and M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Serive Ltd., as tenant vis-à-vis aforesaid house since 2008 and the Rent was released in favour of petitioner no.1 which was ultimately reimbursed to the mother and wife of respondent no.2. It is submitted that thereafter the respondent no.2 tried to forcibly occupy Hall Nos.3 and 4 Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu owned and possessed by the petitioners and the petitioners were compelled to file a civil suit against respondent no.2 and his wife in the month of December 2013, which is pending disposal before Ld. Forest Magistrate, Jammu who was pleased enough to direct the parties to the suit to maintain status quo on spot. In support of the ownership and possession of the petitioners vis-à-vis Hall No.3, the petitioners placed on record the copy of Power of Attorney dated 04-04-2003 and Agreement to Sell dated 25-01-2003 executed by and between one Sh. Gyan Chand Ohri i.e. the original allottee of aforesaid hall and copy of electricity bill and copy of original allotment in the name of Sh. Gyan Chand Ohri.
6. Learned counsel has submitted that failing on all counts, respondent no.2 in order to wreck vengeance, has now filed a false and frivolous FIR No.13/2015 dated 5.3.2015 under section 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 4 of 25 471, 120-B RPC against the petitioners with respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioners challenge the same, amongst other, on the following grounds:-
a. That the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law and in order to secure ends of justice, the same is required to be quashed, inasmuch as the petitioners have not committed any offence and respondent no.2 has lodged the aforesaid FIR with respondent no.1 to misuse the process of law and to harass and pressurize the petitioners for his personal grudge. b. That respondent no.2 has lodged the aforesaid false and frivolous FIR only after filing of civil case by the petitioners as an offshoot to the aforesaid case in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners and has tried to use the aforesaid FIR as a weapon of harassment or prosecution against the petitioners. That the petitioners and respondent No.2 are in civil litigation with regard to same set of facts as alleged in the present FIR since 2013 and when respondent No.2 failed to mount undue pressure upon the petitioners, respondent No.2 decided to file a much delayed FIR on the basis of false, frivolous and self contrary facts inasmuch as petitioner No.1 had been receiving the rent from M/s A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. only with the conscious knowledge of respondent No.2 and remitting the same into the bank accounts of his mother and wife after receiving the same from M/s A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd.
c. That even otherwise also, the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the FIR filed by respondent No.2 are so absurd and inheritably improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the petitioners. It would be complete absurdity to believe that petitioner No.2 substituted the name of his wife i.e. petitioner No.1 in the rent deed specifically when as per the self 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 5 of 25 admission of respondent No.2 in his civil suit filed before learned 1 st Addl. District Judge Jammu, he has admitted that his mother and wife had been receiving rent till July 2009 from M/s A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. through petitioner No.1. Further respondent No.2 has also admitted issuance of letter by petitioner No.1 to Deputy Manager, M/s A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. wherein petitioner No.1 has requested for release of rent directly in the name of mother and wife of respondent No.2 and had also annexed the signed copy of the lease deed/rent deed of mother and wife of respondent No.1.
d. That the allegations in the FIR, even if are taken at its face value and accepted in the entirety, do not constitute offence for prosecuting the petitioners under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B RPC so as to make petitioners liable to be tried under afore said offences, as such, the FIR filed by respondent No.2 is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been maliciously instituted, as such is required to be quashed and further more respondent no.2 has no locus to file the FIR impugned.
e. That even otherwise also, delay in lodging the FIR, for the cause of action if any accrued in the year 2008, speaks volumes about the ill intention of respondent No.2 in filing a false FIR and has made a futile attempt to abuse the process of law for his personal grudge as such FIR impugned is required to be quashed.
7. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG, appearing on behalf of respondent-State, has opposed instant petition stating that a written complaint was lodged by Shri Pardeep Kumar Puri S/o Late Shyam Puri R/o 171-A/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu before CJM, Jammu wherein the complainant had alleged that his father had purchased a house bearing No.74/8 in Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, for an amount of Rs.20.00 Lacs but no formal sale deed was executed and only agreement to sell was prepared on 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 6 of 25 the advice of accused Rajesh Verma S/o Late Dharam Veer Verma R/o 163/3 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, who was engaged as an Income Tax Consultant by his father. The said house was thereafter rented out to M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd., but the accused substituted the original rent deed with a fake and fraudulent rent deed, prepared in the name of his wife Smt. Sangeeta Verma and used to receive the rent from the tenants and thereafter pay the same to the real owners through payees cheque issued from the account of accused Sangeeta Verma, but after some time discontinued such payments and caused huge monitory loss. It was further alleged that accused with a criminal intention and in order to usurp the property left by the father of the complainant also manipulated the power of attorney and agreement to sell in respect of Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu, which was purchased by his late father and substituted the name of his wife, who received all the payments through her bank account etc. On receipt of this complaint, an enquiry was initiated in Crime Branch, Jammu and during the course of enquiry, it was found that accused Rajesh Verma prepared a fake and fabricated rent deed showing his wife as the owner of the house, which was purchased by the father of the complainant, and received the rent from A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter paid the same to the owner through payees cheques from the account of accused Sangeeta Verma for some time and thereafter stopped the same. The complainant had not received the rent for the last 47 months. It was also found that one Hall located in Gandhi Plaza Gole Market, Jammu, was purchased by the father of the complainant on the basis of power of attorney and agreement to sell on behalf of one Gian Chand, after making payment of Rs.2.00 Lacs through cheque but the said payment was encashed in the account of accused Sageeta Verma as the accused Rajesh Verma had manipulated the documents already lying with him in the capacity of Income Tax Advisor, in the name of his wife, in order to cause loss to the complainant and his family.
561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 7 of 258. Learned State counsel further submitted that the omissions and commissions on the part of Rajesh Verma S/o Late Sh. Dharam Veer Verma and Seema Verma (Sangeeta Verma) W/o Rajesh Verma, both residents of 163/3 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, prima facie, constituted offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC. Accordingly, case FIR No.13/2015 stands registered in Police Station, Crime Branch Jammu and investigation of the case has been entrusted to Inspector Manjeet Singh. This complaint was sent to Crime Branch for investigation.
9. During the course of investigation, preliminary verification File of P.V. No.66/2014 along with original complaint and statement of the complainant has been recorded in the instant case as evidence. That the investigation of the case is in progress and necessary steps are being taken to complete the formalities for filing of the challan before the competent court of law against the accused persons. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the instant petition out rightly.
10. Mr. L. K. Sharma learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, representing respondent No.2, has stated in objections that petitioner No.2 is a Taxation Lawyer by profession, who was engaged as Taxation Consultant /Advisor by the father of respondent No.2 after he migrated from Srinagar, without knowing the reputation of petitioner No.2. But the petitioner No.2 intentionally and deliberately filed income tax returns on his behalf and his family members in such a way so that he could use it later on to blackmail the father of respondent No.2 and after his death he tried to blackmail respondent No.2 and his family members by getting their cases reopened for which assessment had already been done to grab the property of respondent No.2 and his family members. The petitioner No.2 received Rs. 15,00,000/- from the father of respondent No.2 by payees account cheque No. 062323 dated 17/10/2006 drawn on Corporation Bank Jammu which he paid back on the very next day i.e. 18/10/2006 by transferring cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from his account No. CLSB/10053 and 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 8 of 25 got the case of father of respondent No.2 reopened for the A.Y.2007-08 on 28/03/2014 for the reasons that assesse has unexplained credits of Rs.20, 00,000/- in his account No. CLSB/60/030004 maintained with Corporation Bank during the financial year 2006-07.The credit of Rs 20,00,000/- in account No.CLSB/60/030004 was actually Rs 15,00,000/- transferred by petitioner No.2 from his account No.CLSB/10053 and Rs 5,00,000/- which father of respondent No. 2 had received from M/S J&K Pulp & Paper Pvt. Limited vide cheque No.19430 drawn on The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. which was returned as part of own money amounting to Rs 15,00,000/- transferred to M/S J&K Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd. from respondent No. 2's father's account No.147010100004008 maintained with Axis Bank vide cheque No.3954 amounting to Rs 10,00,000/- debited on 12/04/2006 and cheque No.3955 amounting to Rs 5,00,000/- debited on 07/07/2006. It is pertinent to mention here that Late Sh. Shyam Puri was a shareholder in M/S J&K Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd.; respondent No.2 was a government employee and his father was a businessman.
11. It is admitted that M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt.
Ltd. was tenant of petitioner No.2 in the year 2008. The petitioners in connection with the marriage of their son asked the said company to vacate their premises. The petitioner No.2 prevailed upon the father of the respondent No.2 to let out his house No.74/8, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu purchased in the name of mother and wife of respondent no.2 to the said M/S A2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. at a monthly rent of Rs 28,000/-. It is denied that on the request of respondent No.2, the petitioners got the representative of M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. introduced to respondent No.2 for letting out his house No.74/8 owned by the mother and wife of respondent No.2. In response to the suit for recovery of rent and damages filed by respondent No.2 titled Pradeep Kumar Puri & Anr. V/s M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., the petitioner No.1 filed her written 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 9 of 25 statement, where the petitioner No.1 in para No.2 of the said written statement has alleged that since the respondent No.2 was a government officer, the ownership of the house was to be kept as secret one that the respondent No.2 had purposely not executed rent/lease deed with M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. which is self contradictory to the petitioner No.1,s statement. Rather it was petitioner No.2 who prevailed upon the father of respondent No.2 to let out the house to M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. at a monthly rent of Rs.28,000/- and the house was let out by the father of the respondent No.2 on behalf of his wife and Sunanda Puri, the wife of respondent No.2. After going through the records and the written statement of M/S A 2 Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. which said company filed in response to the suit for recovery of the rent and damages filed by respondent No.2 in July 2013, it came to the knowledge of the respondent No.2 that their house No.74/8 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu was rented out to the said company much before December, 2012. However, the exact date of the letting out the said house on rent is not known to the respondent No.2 as the father of respondent No.2 is no more and has died on 16/02/2010. But the petitioner No.1 has taken the first payment of rent of Rs.28,000/- from M/S A 2 Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. in the month of November 2008 vide cheque No.2306 which she encahsed on 29/11/2008. The modus operandi of the petitioner No.2 was to give wrong advice to the father of respondent No.2 to purchase the house vide agreement to sell which was duly drafted by petitioner No.2 but he intentionally had not signed the said agreement to sell, fully well knowing that the property cannot be transferred by memorandum of sale. If the contention of the petitioners is presumed that the mother and wife of respondent No.2 were not having clear title over the said house, when at least mother and wife of respondent No. 2 had agreement to sell in their favor and were put in possession of the house No. 74/8, Trikuta Nagar by the vendors and they 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 10 of 25 also got water and electric connection transferred in the name of mother of respondent No.2 ; for the sake of arguments even if it is presumed that there was some defect in the title of mother and wife of respondent No. 2, then on what grounds petitioner No. 1 got rent deeds executed in her favor showing herself as the owner in possession of the house over which she has no semblance of title. The petitioner No.2 right from the very beginning had a long drawn plan to grab the property firstly by advising the father of respondent No.2 to get a memorandum of sale executed instead of a sale deed and then getting the said property let out in the name of his wife. The petitioner No.1 showing herself as owner in possession of the said house is factually wrong and had committed offence of cheating and fabricating false record and used it for criminally misappropriating the income of the property which never belonged to the petitioners.
12. It was only when petitioner No.1 started paying rent by Payees A/C cheques in the name of mother and wife of respondent No.2, the father of respondent No.2 smelling foul play/mischief by the petitioners got doubt about their intentions and asked the petitioners that why petitioner No.1 is paying rent to the mother and wife of the respondent No.2 instead of directly paying the rent by the tenants to the mother and wife of respondent No.2 and why the lease/rent deed is being delayed and not executed. There upon the petitioner No.2 drafted a rent deed /lease deed dated 13/06/2009 for 11 months starting from 01/12/2008 in the name of mother and wife of respondent No.2 and after getting it signed from mother and wife of respondent No.2 handed over the same to the father of respondent No.2 along with a covering letter of petitioner No.1 addressed to one Mr.Sanjay Kamal, Deputy Manager M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. for his signatures on behalf of his company. The lease/rent deed dated 13/06/2009 with a forwarding letter of petitioner No.1 was sent by the father of the respondent No.2 to the said company by the courier service Blue Dart on 26/06/2009. But because of criminal connivance of the 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 11 of 25 petitioners and the said company, said rent deed was never returned duly signed by the said Deputy Manager. The petitioner No.1 through petitioner No.2 has paid the rent of Rs.2,11,022/- only by payees A/C cheques after making deductions of TDS for 3 months to the mother and wife of respondent No.2. Thereafter neither petitioner No.1 nor petitioner No.2 paid any rent to the mother and wife of the respondent No.2. In the meanwhile the father of respondent No.2 died on 16/02/2010 and after his death the petitioner No.2 started exploiting respondent No.2 and his family members by getting almost all settled income tax cases reopened by supplying manipulated wrong information to the Income Tax Department sometimes directly and sometime under assumed names and addresses. The father of the respondent No.2 was filing his income tax returns as per the advice of petitioner No.2 which returns were duly signed by petitioner No.2 as his Taxation Consultant and the petitioner No.2 was having an eye over the said house 74/8 situated at Trikuta Nagar Jammu and one Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gandhi Nagar Jammu. It was only in the month of mid December 2012 that the respondent No.2 visited his house at Trikuta Nagar and found that the house was left open by the tenants without handing over the possession to the mother and wife of respondent No.2. The house was found unlocked and had suffered extensive damage to its sanitary wares and wooden almirahs causing loss of more than Rs.2,00,000. Meanwhile mother of respondent No.2 also died on 20/01/2013 and her property was inherited by respondent No.2 being her only son. The respondent No.2 and his wife were thus forced to file a suit for recovery of rent and damages, in the month of July 2013, caused to their house, to which the company M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner No.1 filed their written statement. It was at this stage that respondent No.2 after going through the written statement of the company got the knowledge that petitioner No.1 was regularly getting the rent deeds executed in her name showing herself as the owner in possession of the house No.74/8 Trikuta 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 12 of 25 Nagar Jammu which actually belonged to the mother and wife of respondent no.2.
13. That the petitioner No.1 has not reimbursed the rent to the wife and mother of respondent No.2 by way of account payees cheque till July 2009 and thereafter she wrote a letter to the Deputy Manager A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and enclosed copy of the new rent deed. The fact is that when the father of respondent No.2 smelling some foul play/mischief on the part of the petitioners resented that why the rent was being paid by the petitioner No.1, when the house has been rented out to M/S A 2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and why the rent deed /lease deed was not executed and delayed so much. There upon a rent deed dated 13/06/2009 was drafted by a petitioner No.2. This rent deed has been shown to be commencing from 01/12/2008 and valid for 11 months. As is evident from the Annexure C of the petition the original rent deed dated 13/06/2009 was forwarded by the petitioner No.1 to the deputy manager of M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., after getting the same signed by the mother and wife of respondent No.2. This rent deed was sent to M/S A 2 Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. by courier service Blue Dart on 26/06/2009.The petitioner No.2 had paid the last payment of rent to the mother of respondent No.2 by account payees cheque No. 61122 on 08/09/2009 and to the wife of respondent No.2 by cheque No.61121 on 08/09/2009. As such it is evident that the statement of petitioner No.1 is wrong that she had written the letter to the said company with a copy of rent deed after reimbursing the rent upto July 2009 to the wife and mother of respondent No.2. The fact is that the original rent deed dated 13/06/2009 was drafted by petitioner No.2 with a forwarding letter of petitioner No.1 to the said company in the month of June itself and handed it over to the father of respondent No.2 for dispatching the same to the said company which was sent by the father of the respondent No.2 by courier Blue Dart on 26/06/2009. Since the covering 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 13 of 25 letter of petitioner No.1 which forms Annexure C of the petition forwarding the original rent deed dated 13/06/2009 of the mother and wife of the respondent No.2 was sent by courier on 26/06/2009 as such directing the payment of rent from the month of July is actually the direction for giving payment from next month.
14. That due to the deteriorating health of the father of respondent No.2, the father of respondent No.2 got the Hall No.3 vacated from the then tenants in the month of April 2009, paid the rent dues of Hall No.3 to JDA from October 2007 to ending April 2009 and locked the said Hall. The father of respondent No.2 died on 16/02/2010. After the death of father of respondent No.2 the locked hall remained under the peaceful possession of mother of respondent No.2. In the month of July 2012 when the respondent No.2 wanted to clear the electric dues of the Hall No.3 for the period the hall remained locked, he found that till then the electricity was being used illegally by hooking in this premises. As such on 14/07/2012 a legal electric connection was got sanctioned in the name of mother of respondent No.2 for this Hall No.3 which belonged to her and right from the month of July 2012 onwards demand charges were paid to the department till November 2013 as no electricity was consumed against this installation No. GN4/2-B-473/A as the Hall No.3 remained locked from April 2009 onwards. The mother of respondent No.2 died on 20/01/2013 and thereafter respondent No.2 being her only son inherited her properties including Hall no.3, Gandhi Plaza, Gandhi Nagar Jammu. That in the mid of December 2013 the respondent No.2 went to the JDA office to pay the outstanding rent of Hall No.3 ending November 2013 for the period the Hall remained locked from April 2009 onwards. The concerned JDA staff informed the respondent No.2 that the presently the rent of Hall No.3 had been enhanced by the JDA from Rs 756/- per month to Rs 1890/- per month from the last couple of years and the accumulated outstanding rent ending November 2013 is Rs 78950/- which the respondent No.2 paid to JDA by account payees cheque on 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 14 of 25 19/12/2013 and the amount was duly credited in JDA'S account on 23/12/2013. To the respondent No.2's astonishment the JDA staff also informed him that at times somebody had deposited small amount towards the rent of Hall No.3 to obtain the receipts, the latest of which was Rs.5000/- deposited on 26/02/2013 vide Book No.63452 which was about one month after the death of the mother of respondent No.2 who died on 20/01/2013. The respondent No.2 is confident that this must be the act of the petitioners to fabricate and create false evidence to usurp the Hall No.3 of the respondent No.2 which admittedly belonged to the mother of respondent No.2 as shown by petitioner No.2 in the yearly Income Tax Returns of the mother of respondent No.2 duly filed by petitioner No.2 as her Taxation Consultant. The petitioners have forcibly, fraudulently and with criminal intentions in order to grab the Hall No.3 of the mother of respondent No.2, have forcibly broke open the lock of Hall No.3 to usurp the same and thereafter filed a frivolous suit for injunction against the respondent No.2 1st and his wife seeking interim injunction from the court of Additional Munsiff, Jammu claiming that the Hall No.3 belongs to them inspite of the fact that the Hall No.3 was sold by petitioner No.1 to the mother of respondent No.2 through the father of respondent No.2 in the year 2006 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,75,000/. The electric bill enclosed with the writ petition pertains to Hall no.4 and not Hall No.3 as alleged by the petitioners in the petition. The petitioners have fraudulently sworn false affidavit that the bill pertains to Hall No.3 in the writ petition and are required to be prosecuted and the petition required to be dismissed for intentionally making false averments. From the above, it is evident that the exparte interim injunction is obtained by the petitioners on false grounds that they had pledged the Hall No.3 to the respondent No.2 against a loan of Rs 1,00,000/- in the year 2003 as alleged in the plaint of the suit titled Seema Verma & Anr. V/S Pardeep Kumar Puri & Anr. in Para -6(page 45) Annexure K of the petition while the fact is that they had sold the Hall no.3 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 15 of 25 to the mother of respondent No.2 through the father of respondent No.2 in the year 2006 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,75,000/- as stated above in detail.
15. That in fact the petitioners have forcibly broke open the lock of Hall No.3 in order to forcibly, fraudulently and with criminal intention to grab the Hall No.3 of the mother of respondent No.2 and thereafter got interim injunction of status quo against the respondent No.2 and his wife on false grounds to forestall the criminal action against the petitioners. The respondent No.2 approached Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu with complaint but on the failure of the police to register the complaint on the basis of the status quo order obtained by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 approached the Crime Branch for taking action against the petitioners but when the Crime Branch also did not proceeded in the matter, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in the court of CJM Jammu which was sent to the Crime Branch Jammu for taking action under law.
16. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, gone through the contents of the petition, objections and also considered the law on the subject. I have also gone through the written arguments furnished by counsel for complainant.
17. This Court on 13.03.2015, while issuing notice to other side, stayed the investigation in FIR No.13/2015 dated 05.03.2015 of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu.
18. The scope of power of High Court under the provision of 561-A Cr.p.c has been been given In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., wherein it is held as under:-
"11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two- Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 16 of 25 Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 17 of 25 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court's inherent power can be exercised.
12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court."
19. In present case, parties have filed lengthy pleadings as if this court is dealing with civil matter.
20. From the bare perusal of pleadings and documents attached, it is evident that case of complainant/respondent no.2 is two folds; first in brief case of respondent no.2/complainant is that his father had purchased a house bearing No.74/8 in Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, for an amount of Rs.20.00 Lacs by virtue of agreement to sell executed on 6.8.2005 and notarized on 8.6.2005, on the name of his wife Mohni Puri and daughter in law Sunanda Puri; as per complainant this agreement to sell was prepared on the advice of accused Rajesh Verma S/o Late Dharam Veer Verma R/o 163/3 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, who was engaged as an Income Tax Consultant by his father; the said house was thereafter rented out to M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd., but the accused substituted the original rent deed with a fake and fraudulent rent deed, prepared in the name of his wife Smt. Sangeeta Verma on 27.8.2008 and she used to receive the rent from the tenants and thereafter pay the same to the real owners through payees cheque issued from the account of accused Sangeeta Verma, but after some time discontinued such payments and caused huge monitory loss.
21. Secondly the case of complainant /respondent no.2 is that accused with a criminal intention and in order to usurp the property left by the father of the complainant also manipulated the power of attorney and agreement to sell in 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 18 of 25 respect of Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu, which was purchased by his late father and substituted the name of his wife, who received all the payments through her bank account etc.
22. The crime branch has registered the FIR u/s 420/406/465/466/467/468/471/120-B RPC. That is forgery of rent deed dated 27.8.2008 allegedly executed for house bearing No.74/8 in Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, in favour of M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. and power of attorney and agreement to sell in respect of Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu. Forgery is defined in Section 463 RPC. It reads:
"463. Forgery.
Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Making of false document is defined in Section 464 of RPC. It reads:
"Sec.464. Making a false document.
[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First- who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs seals or executes a document or a part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or a part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution a document or the authenticity of the digital signature; with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signal, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on an electronic record, knowing that such person by reason of 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 19 of 25 unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration]."
23. As per sections 463/464 RPC, the person who is charged with offence of forgery has to make sign, seal and to execute a document, which he knows that it is false. To attract sections 467 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. Dishonestly means doing any act in order to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another; fraudulently means act done with intent to defraud. There cannot be direct evidence with regard to conspiracy; it can be inferred from the evidence produced during trial and other attending circumstances of case..
24. Perusal of rent deed dated 27.11.2008 (allegedly forged) by virtue of which house in question was rented out to M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd., it is evident that it bears signature of Seema Verma-petitioner no.1 as landlord and M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd as tenant. Further as per complainant deceased Mohni Puri, the mother has received rent of building up to July 2009. This rent deed was up to for 11 months.
25. Then there is letter written by Petitioner no.1 to M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd , in which it has been narrated that fresh rent/lease deed duly signed by original landlord Mohni Puri ( deceased mother of complainant) and Smt. Sunanada Puri ( wife of complainant) be executed and future rent from July onwards be given to them. The photocopy of letter and rent deed duly signed by landlord Mohini Puri (deceased mother of complainant) and Smt. Sunanada Puri (wife of complainant) are in file. This fact has not been denied by complainant. On this rent deed tenant did not sign, as complainant was asked to clear title ; so again a rent deed was executed by petitioner no.1 on instance of complainant on 27.7.2010 for period commencing from 1.8.2009 onwards, and rent released for previous period was paid to complainant as per petitioner. Then there is rent deed 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 20 of 25 executed again by petitioner Seema Verma on 1.8.2010 in favor of tenant for two month and finally tenant vacated the premises in October 2010 . This fact is also evident from rent deed dated 27.9.2010 executed by M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd with another landlord with regard to another property H.No. 7 Sector 2A Ext. Trikuta Nagar, Jammu with one Vijay Gupta.
26. In this way, petitioner no.1 has not forged the signature of deceased Mohini Puri or Sunanda Puri on rent deeds, because Seema Verma has put her own signature on alleged rent deed as landlord. So question of forgery and making of false document as defined u/s 463/464 RPC does not arise.
27. Criminal breach has been defined u/s 405 /406 RPC. It read:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
28. In present case, it is the case of complainant that his father has received rent up to July 2009 with regard to house no.74/8 situated in Trikuta Nagar, from M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. through petitioner no.1. His further case is that from onwards till December 2012, he did not receive any rent. So accused--petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust. But it is fact that tenants M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. has vacated the premises in October 2010; so question of criminal breach does not arise after October 2010. For proving the breach of trust, complainant firstly has to prove that accused/petitioners have received the rents and did not pay to him. For this purpose already he has filed civil suit for recovery against petitioner no.1 and M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd; petitioners herein have taken 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 21 of 25 specific stand in written statements in suit that they have paid the rent up to date complainant. So this controversy is required to be decided by civil court that is seized of matter after framing of specific issue in this regard.
29. Further for argument sake even if rent has not been paid by petitioner after July 2009 to October 2010, but FIR has been lodged on 5.3.2015 after more than 5 years. The offences under section 406 RPC carries punishment up to three years and limitation for taking cognizance is also three years, so FIR is time barred.
30. Next allegation with regard to usurp the property left by the father of the complainant, accused manipulated the power of attorney and agreement to sell in respect of Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu, is concerned except bald aversion ,there is nothing on record.
31. From the document annexed in petition it is evident that this hall was allotted to one Gian Chand by JDA vide allotment order dated 16.1.1993. Agreement to sell with regard to this hall has been executed between petitioner no.1 and Gian chand on 25.1.2003; power of attorney with regard to this hall has been executed by said Gian Chand in favor of Petitioner no.1 on 4.4.2003, the same has been attested by Sub Registrar on 12.4.2003. There are also electricity Bills on the names of Petitioner no.1. All these documents are legal documents and an inference can be drawn that Petitioner no. is owner in possession of this Hall.
32. Further as already held civil suits with regard to same controversies are pending before civil courts; one suit has been filed by complainant and his wife against M/s A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Service Ltd. and petitioner no.1 herein for recovery of arrears of rent from August 2009 to 15.1.2013 with regard house no.74/8 situated in Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, on same allegations which has been narrated in FIR; this suit is pending before District Court Jammu. Another civil suit has already been filed by Petitioners against the complainant and his wife for permanent prohibitory 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 22 of 25 injunction with regard to Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, and Jammu. In both suit written statements have been filed.. The allegations thus leveled in complaint upon which impugned FIR No.13/2015 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC has been lodged by Crime branch Jammu, are same which has been disclosed in plaint in civil suit for recovery filed by complainant and written statements filed by complainant as defendants in civil suit filed by petitioners herein with regard to Hall No.3 situated at Gandhi Plaza, Gole Market, Jammu. So civil courts are already seized of matter in controversy and requisite issues shall be framed accordingly.
33. In M/s Thermax Ltd. Vs. K M Johny, reported in 2011 (13) SCC 412, it is held as under:-
"10----------------------. In Suresh vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 670, this Court, on the ground of delay/laches in filing the complaint and the dispute relates to civil nature finding absence of ingredients of alleged offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, set aside the order of the Magistrate and that of the High Court. In that case, the alleged agreement to sell was executed on 25.12.1988. A legal notice was issued to the appellant therein on 11.07.1996 calling upon him to execute the sale deed in respect of the premises in question. Thus, the complaint was submitted after a gap of 7 years of splendid silence from the date of the alleged agreement to sell i.e. 25.12.1988. The appellant therein responded to the legal notice dated 11.07.1996 by his reply dated 18.07.1996 through his lawyer specifically denying the alleged agreement and the payment of Rs 1,25,000/- as advance. Nothing was heard thereafter and the complainant after keeping quiet for nearly 3 years filed private complaint under Section 200 of the Code before the IVth Additional CMM, Bangalore on 17.05.1999. The Magistrate, on the same date, directed his office to register the case as PCR and referred the same to the local police for investigation and to submit a report as per Section 156(3) of the Code. A charge-sheet was filed on 04.08.2000 by the police against the appellant-Accused No. 1 only for offence under Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code and issued summons to the accused-appellant therein.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid process order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the Magistrate, the appellant-accused preferred the criminal revision which was dismissed by the High Court. The order of the High Court was under
challenge in that appeal. It was contended that as per the averments in the complaint, even as per the police report, no offence is made out against Accused Nos. 2-4 therein. Despite this, the Magistrate issued process against Accused Nos. 2-4 as well which clearly shows the non-application of mind by the Magistrate. It was further pointed out that a perusal of the complaint 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 23 of 25 would only reveal that the allegations as contained in the complaint are of civil nature and do not prima facie disclose commission of alleged criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. After finding that inasmuch as the police has given a clean chit to Accused Nos. 2-4, this Court concluded that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence against Accused No.1 and that the complaint has been made to harass him to come to terms by resorting to criminal process. Regarding the delay, this Court pointed out that the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999, after a lapse of 10= years and, therefore, the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 therein is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It was further observed that it is also not clearly proved that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise and finding that the order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring Accused No.1/appellant therein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the High Court and of the Magistrate. It is clear that in view of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the complainant and of the fact that the complaint does not disclose any ingredients of Section 420 IPC and also of the fact that at the most it is the dispute of civil nature, this Court quashed the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court.
11) In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court, after pointing out the grounds on which the criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of the Code at preliminary stage by the High Court highlighted that a case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. While elaborating the same, this Court further held that there would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. Based on the materials in that case, the Court concluded that the case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offences are wanting.
After considering the power underSection 482 of the Code and adverting to series of decisions including Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi , (1976) 3 SCC 736 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court concluded thus:
"7. In a few cases, the question arose whether a criminal prosecution could be permitted when the dispute between the parties is of predominantly civil nature and the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. In one case reported in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre this Court held that if the allegations in the complaint are both of a civil wrong and a criminal offence, there would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to a criminal offence. That was a case relating to a trust. There were three trustees including the settler. A large house constituted part of the trust property. The respondent and the complainant were acting as Secretary and Manager of the Trust and the house owned by the Trust was in the possession of a tenant. The tenant vacated the building and the allegation in the complaint was that two officers of the Trust, in conspiracy with one of the trustees and his wife, created 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 24 of 25 documents showing tenancy in respect of that house in favour of the wife of the trustee. Another trustee filed a criminal complaint alleging that there was commission of the offence under Sections 406, 467 read with Sections 34and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons challenged the proceedings before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of two of the accused persons. It was under those circumstances that this Court observed:
(SCC Headnote) "Though a case of breach of trust may be both a civil wrong and a criminal offence but there would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to a criminal offence. The present case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offences are wanting. Having regard to the relevant documents including the trust deed as also the correspondence following the creation of the tenancy, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the natural relationship between the settlor and the trustee as mother and son and the fall out in their relationship and the fact that the wife of the co- trustee was no more interested in the tenancy, it must be held that the criminal case should not be continued."
34. In view of what has been discussed above and law on the point, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused/petitioners of criminal nature. The allegations in the first information report and other materials do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.13/2015 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC against the petitioners by respondent No.1 at the behest of respondent No.2, is quashed.
( Sanjay Kumar Gupta ) Judge Jammu 28.10.2017 Narinder 561-A Cr.P.C. No.93 of 2015 Page 25 of 25