Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajiv Gupta vs State Of J&K; And Ors on 19 September, 2017
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
LPA OW No.88/2017
MP No. 1/2017
Date of decision:19/09/2017
_______________________________________________________________
Rajeev Gupta. Vs. State of J&K & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Appearing counsel:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) :
(i) Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Law Journals etc.
(ii) Whether approved for publication
in Press. Yes/No
__________________________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar, J:
1. The appellant is husband of respondent No. 4. There appears to be some matrimonial discard between the two. There is multiple litigation going on between the appellant and respondent No. 4 in various Courts. It appears that as a sequel to the matrimonial discard between the parties, the appellant filed a complaint before the Vigilance Organization, Jammu against his estranged wife respondent No. 4, her father, mother and some officials of the Education Department with the allegations that respondent No. 4 had managed her appointment as RET in K.G.B.V. Bajohi Macheddi Zone Malhar (Billawar) on the basis of fictitious documents. The appellant, who appears to have failed to persuade the Vigilance Organization to register FIR against respondent No. 4, LPAOW No.88/2017 Page 1 of 4 her parents and the officials of the Education Department, approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu by way of an application under Section 156 (3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code. On the application moved by the appellant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu directed the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu to investigate the matter under law.
2. As is apparent from the pleadings of the parties, the Crime Branch investigated the matter and submitted a report to the learned Magistrate in which it has been indicated that the allegations leveled against respondent No. 4 have not been substantiated and the complaint has been filed by the appellant solely with an intention to frustrate the litigation going on between the parties arising out of some matrimonial dispute and that the selection of respondent No. 4 had been done after following due process/procedure as per guidelines issued by the Government. Having failed to get the criminal case registered against respondent No. 4 and others, the appellant approached this Court by way of OWP No. 1013/2014 in which the appellant, inter alia, prayed for the following directions:-
"i) To issue directions to the respondents No. 2 & 3 to expeditiously investigate the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 16.01.2014 against the proforma respondents for the commission of offences punishable under section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 148, 149, 34 read with Section 120-B RPC and under Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 by issuance of writ of mandamus,
ii) To issue directions to the official respondents No. 1 to 3 that in alternative constitute Special Investigating Team to expeditiously investigate the complaint filed by the petitioner against the proforma respondents so that fair and impartial investigations are conducted in the complaint by issuance of writ of mandamus,
iii) To issue directions to the official respondents to produce the record of investigation/enquiry conducted so far by the official respondents into the complaint LPAOW No.88/2017 Page 2 of 4 filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2014 before this Hon'ble Court by issuance of writ of Mandamus.
iv) To declare the act of the official respondents by which the official respondents have not conducted the fair and proper investigations against the proforma respondents who are very strong headed and influential persona as unconstitutional, ultra virus, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and Police Rules by issuance of writ of mandamus.
v) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, in the interest of justice."
3. The petition was contested by the respondents. The matter was considered and vide Judgment dated 10th July, 2017, impugned in this appeal, the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to pursue his complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. It is this order of learned Single Judge that has been called in question in this Appeal.
4. We have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. It is not in dispute that there is matrimonial discard between the appellant and the respondent No. 4 and various cases are pending adjudication before different Courts of law pertaining to the matrimonial disputes between them. The appellant-husband approached the Vigilance Organization, Jammu by way of complaint against respondent No. 4, her parents and the Government officials with the allegation that she had managed her appointment as RET on the basis of fictitious documents and, therefore, an FIR should be registered and investigated. He also approached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu with an application in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C for issuance of appropriate directions to the Crime Branch, Jammu to register a case against respondent No. 4 and others. Status reports with regard to investigation of the LPAOW No.88/2017 Page 3 of 4 matter by the Crime Branch have been submitted before the Magistrate from time to time.
6. That being the position, the Criminal Procedure Code is a complete Code in itself and provides the remedies where the police refuses to register a case even if the commission of cognizable offence is made out. The aggrieved person/complainant is also entitled to file a private complaint in terms of Section 200 Cr. P. C, in case Police fails to take action. This is notwithstanding the powers of Magistrate to direct registration of FIR and investigation in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The appellant cannot circumvent the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code and invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for settling scores with his estranged wife. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly disposed of the petition leaving it open to the appellant to work out his remedies as envisaged under Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any reasons to circumvent the procedure laid down under the Criminal Procedure Code and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for getting the criminal case registered against respondent No. 4 and others. The writ petition, therefore, is not the jurisdiction to be invoked under such circumstances.
7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(Sanjeev Kumar) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
19/09/2017
Tilak, Secy.
LPAOW No.88/2017 Page 4 of 4