Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ramesh Chander Anand vs Ut Of J&K Through S.H.O. Police Station on 8 September, 2023
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 573/2015
IA No. 1/2015
1. Ramesh Chander Anand, Age 77 years, .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Babu Ram Anand,
R/o H. No. 218, Sector- I Adarsh Enclave,
Trikuta Nagar, Jammu.
2. Khazan Singh, Age 75 years,
S/o Sh. Late Gulab Singh,
R/o R.S Pura, Tehsil R.S Pura,
District Jammu.
3. Satpal, Age 75 Years,
S/o Sh. Mool Raj,
R/O Prem Nagar,
Tehsil and District Kathua.
Through: Mr. Ajay Gandotra, Advocate
Vs
1. UT of J&K through S.H.O. Police Station, ..... Respondent(s)
Kathua.
2. Arvind Kumar S/o Late Sh. M. L. Gupta,
R/o Ward No. 1, Jawahar Nagar, Teshil &
District Kathua.
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG for R-1.
None for R-2.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
08.09.2023
01. The petitioners are the senior citizens, who found themselves named as accused in FIR no. 358/2014 dated 15.10.2014 by the Police Station, Kathua for alleged commission of 2 CRMC No. 573/2015 offences under section 447 & 452 Ranbir Penal Code. This FIR got registered at the instance of Advocate Arvind Kumar s/o Late Sh. M. P. Gupta by resorting to mode of 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the petitioners had trespassed his house of which no address stood given in his application and that this alleged trespassing had taken place in his absence when only his minor daughter and a pet (german shepherd) was in the house. The complainant has referred that there is a dispute as hinted a land dispute angle against the petitioners.
02. Upon the direction from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, the FIR above referred came to be registered, feeling aggrieved whereof the petitioners came to approach this Court with the present petition in which this Court vide an order dated 02.12.2015 came to stay the proceedings in the said FIR.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioners addresses the attention of this Court to the fact that FIR no.358/2014 dated 15.10.2014 was a counter measure resorted to by Advocate Arvind Kumar to an FIR no.382/2014 dated 02.11.2014 registered with the Police Station, Kathua for alleged commission of offences under section 447/427 Ranbir Penal Code registered against Arvind Kumar. Against this FIR no.382/2014, the accused Arvind Kumar had petitioned this Court with a petition 561-A Cr.P.C. no. 437/2014, 3 CRMC No. 573/2015 which came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of an order dated 18.04.2018.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 along with father of the petitioner no. 1 came to be joint owners of one kanal of land in khasra no. 330 at Taraf Tajwal, Kathua by reference to a sale-deed dated 24.01.1968 and that it is this plot of land which was being eyed upon by Arvind Kumar to lay his hand thereupon so as to extend his neighbouring 3 kanals of plot to become 4 kanals of plot.
05. This Court in terms of an order dated 08.02.2023 came to implead Advocate Arvind Kumar as the respondent no. 2 in the present petition and directed issuance of notice to him which came to be duly served upon him in terms of office noting dated 01.04.2023 and despite that nobody has caused appearance on his behalf, as such, there is a default of appearance on his part. Accordingly, he is set ex parte.
06. From the perusal of the complaint, which is so registered by the respondent no. 2 - Arvind Kumar on the basis of which FIR no. 358/2014 came be registered against the petitioner, it is forthcoming that the complaint has no factual content whatsoever except a very generalized reference without spelling out that how come in his house only minor daughter was alone present without any other adult member and the family persons and how the visit of 4 CRMC No. 573/2015 the petitioners came to be identified by him through his minor daughter. In addition, in the complaint the respondent no. 2- Arvind Kumar has not spelled out the particulars of the house which allegedly came to be trespassed upon by the petitioners.
07. Thus, it is evident that the registration of the FIR was with a purpose other than for which it was shown to be and that is to settle some property land related issue by indulging in arm-twisting against the petitioners. As such, this Court reckons that the registration of the FIR no. 358/2014 dated 15.10.2014 registered with the Police Station, Kathua is an abuse of process of law at the instance of respondent no. 2 - Arvind Kumar. The FIR no. 358/2014 deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed, leaving the Police Station, Kathua to conclude the investigation with respect to FIR no. 382/2014 dated 02.11.2014.
Disposed of accordingly.
(Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 08.09.2023 Muneesh Whether the order is speaking : Yes / No Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No