Balbir Singh And Anr vs State And Ors

Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 0099/2018 dated 06.06.2018 registered with Police Station, Satwari for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 382 RPC and the final report/charge sheet No. 64/2018 dated 15.07.2018 pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu.

The facts as these culled out from the instant petition are that Police Station, Satwari has registered a case FIR No. 0099/2018, for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 382 RPC against the present petitioners on 06.06.2018, when it was approached by respondent No. 4-Veena Kour with a complaint alleging that when she was passing by the site of the road leading to Babliana Raina Colony, Balbir Singh (petitioner no. 1 herein) while watching the complainant and her brother, he snatched her purse with amount of Rs. 20,000/- and a golden ring. In the complaint it was further stated that brother of the complainant-Veena Kour, namely, Bahadur Singh was seriously injured and she also sustained head injuries. Her wearing apparels were torn out and molested badly by the petitioner No. 1 herein.

The investigation was conducted and, accordingly, the final report and challan was presented on 24.07.2018 in the Court of Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Jammu.

The Investigating Agency has framed an opinion that allegation with regard to commission of offences under Section 382 RPC has not been made out and so the case has been registered for commission of offences under Sections 341/323 RPC.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the parties had settled their differences and various other disputes in terms of a compromise reference of which is found in the compromise deed submitted along with petition and which was duly executed in the Court of learned Additional District, Baramulla on 03.04.2008. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 had no right or interest on 01 Kanal of plot situated in Babliana Raina,Colony as projected by her right at the time of registration of FIR No. 0099/2018.It is further stated that petitioner No. 1has purchased 01 kanal of plot in Babliana Raina Colony vice Sale Deed dated 17.09.2001 which was duly registered on 18.09.2001 by Sub-Registrar (Munsiff) Jammu. Resultantly, according to the petitioners the registration of the FIR (supra) and continuance of the proceeding initiated would be a total abuse of the process of Court and deserves to be quashed.

Further contention is raised that the investigating agency has not properly paid its attention towards the allegations. From the perusal of the documents on record according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it can be safely opined that the case of the petitioner herein falls within the ambit of illustrations (e) and (g) of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.Quite apposite it may be to reproduce same:-

"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) 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 ac-cused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation 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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 institu- tion 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;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H; 306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justi- ï7 on and this case does not call for the exercise of extra ordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself."

Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the pleas raised in the petition for quashment of proceedings are well founded.

Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 AIR SC 5846, Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy and anr, as according to learned counsel for the petitioners the documents on record are of sterling quality, which have been withheld by the prosecutor during the course of investigation of the case.

Ongoing through the copy of the final report submitted by the police, it emanates that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 are brother and sister and are litigating before the various courts regarding entitlement of the property. The plot referred to in challan is alleged by respondent No. 4 to have been purchased as a Benami transaction in the name of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 4 has alleged that she was attacked by the petitioner on 06.06.2018, due to which she and her brother, namely, Bahadur Singh sustained injuries. The petitioner No. 1 was arrested on spot and later on released on bail.

It would also herein be proper to refer judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Janta Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1993 SC 892, 1993 Cril.J 600. In the said case, their Lordships have observed that criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the courts exist.

In Dr. Raghubir Sharon v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that inherent power is to be exercised for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers. In a series of judgments, Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have observed that for purposes of exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 561-A Cr.P.C of the State, to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se, it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of otherwise of the allegations.

In the instant case, the trial court has to examine the correctness of the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein for restraining respondent No. 4 wrongfully at the venue of occurrence referred in challan and for having assaulted the complainant and her brother, namely, Bahadur Singh on 06.06.2018. The investigating agency has already taken note of the fact that the parties have joined issue with each other for contesting various cases litigated before different courts. Exercise inherent jurisdiction is not permissible at this stage for negating the correctness of allegations of assault and wrongful restraint on the assumption that the petitioners herein may have right of enjoying the property in the form of plot referred to in the petition or respondent No. 4 has outlined a false story in FIR. Allegations of wrongful restraint and assault have been opined to have been proved during investigation, in the light of statement of witnesses and the veracity of same is to be tested at trial. In the light of material on record the allegations leveled cannot be deemed to be vexatious in nature and so quashed at this very stage. This Court has no role to play under Section 561-A Cr.P.C to comment upon the question of fact, which needs a detailed elaboration and examination after leading of evidence by the parties, at trial.

Viewing the matter in the above backdrop, I am of the opinion that no sufficient ground is made out for quashing the FIR No. 0099/2018 dated 06.06.2018 and final report/charge-sheet No. 64/2018 dated 15.07.2018, pending in the court of learned Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu.

Dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners herein to approach this court at a subsequent stage, if cause of action survives for the same.

Dismissed in limini, in the above said terms.