Joginder Bhandari vs State of J&K & Anr

Rajesh Sekhri, J

The petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1989, [“CrP.C.”] for quashment of FIR No. 140/2018 for offences under Sections 353,504,506 RPC registered with Police Station, Kishtwar, primarily, on the ground of false implication.

As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 29.05.2018, the concerned Police Station received a written report from the office of District Magistrate, Kishtwar, [“the complainant”], regarding alleged circulation of provocative and misleading information sent by the petitioner to instigate the unemployed youth of Kishtwar against the Project Management of Pakal Dul Project and District Administration in the social and mainstream Media. As per the report, the petitioner was called by the District Magistrate in his office, keeping in view the law and order priorities. At about 4:45 p.m., the petitioner attended the office, during the ongoing meeting of the officers of the District Administration. The petitioner was advised by the District Magistrate regarding his acts and was suggested not to repeat the act of spreading misleading, provocative and instigating information among the youth of the District through social media, as it had the tendency to unnecessarily create the law and order problem. However, instead of listening to the advice of the District Magistrate, the petitioner, it is alleged, used filthy, abusive and un-parliamentary language against him. The officers of the District Administration, present in chamber of the District Magistrate, tried to pacify the petitioner. However, the complainant goes on to allege that the petitioner started shouting loudly with shouts like “I will teach you a lesson”, “you do not know me I have seen many like you”, “Hum Jo Rattle Project main kar sakte they wo abb bhi kar sakte hai” and “Tum hamari takat nahi jantay”.

It was further alleged that the petitioner earlier also used to visit the office of the District Magistrate to make complaints against the management of CVPP and AFCONS Pakal Dul Project for not entertaining him for supplying labour and awarding works in his favour. He, on several occasions, was advised not to pressurize the Project Management. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner attempted to pounce upon him, but was prevented by the officers present in his chamber. As a result, the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR, and impugned FIR came to be registered.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR, inter alia on the ground that allegations made in the FIR are patently absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, no prudent person can reach a conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against him. According to the petitioner, he was called by the District Magistrate in his office in a very well planned conspiracy to implicate him into a false and frivolous case and the contents of the FIR donot disclose the commission of any offence against him.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds urged in the petition has also argued that District Magistrate is not vested with the jurisdiction to lodge a complaint or direct the registration of FIR.

Learned Government counsel, on the other hand, has argued that contents of the FIR, prima facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner.

This Court is vested with inherent power to prevent the abuse of the process of any law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, it can be exercised with care and circumspection and it is trite that if the contents of the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of cognizable offence(s), this Court, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and stifle the investigation.

The allegation against the petitioner is that when he attended the office of the District Magistrate, regarding the alleged circulation of provocative, misleading and instigating information, received by the District Magistrate, he was advised to desist from repeating the said acts of spreading misleading, provocative and instigating information, however, the petitioner, instead of listening to the advise, not only used filthy, abusive and un-parliamentary language against the complainant, but pounced upon him, who was prevented by the officers of the District Administration, present in his chamber.

It is true that District Magistrate has directed registration of FIR against the petitioner, however, it is evident from the tone and tenor of the complaint lodged by him that he has sent a communication to the concerned Police Station, as a complainant/victim, for registration of the FIR and the contents of the FIR, prima facie, disclose the commission of offences under Sections 353, 504 RPC read with Section 506 RPC, as the petitioner is not only alleged to have insulted, assaulted and intimidated the complainant but used criminal force against a public servant to deter him from the performance of his official duty.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is found devoid of merit, hence dismissed along with connected CrlM(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in the present judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed of.