Mst Rehana And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Ors

Sanjay Dhar, J

The petitioners have challenged FIR No.117/2022 for offences under Sections 384, 385, 389, 506 IPC registered with Police Station Kokernag.

As per the impugned FIR, it has been alleged that pursuant to the directions of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners are habitual blackmailers and that they are harassing and extorting money from the complainant/respondent No.5. It is further averred in the impugned FIR that the petitioners have already extorted a sum of rupees two lacs from the complainant at Soaf Shali Kokernag in the house of one Ashiq Hussain and that the petitioners are still demanding money from him by putting him under fear to cause injury to his reputation by implicating him in a false case.

The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid FIR contending that the contents of the impugned FIR do not disclose commission of any offence by them. It has been further contended that at the instance of petitioners, an FIR bearing No.25/2020 for offences under Section 367-D, 506, 509, 120-B IPC read with Section 66 of IT Act, was registered with Police Station Larnoo, Kokernag and after investigation a challan has been filed against the accused which is pending trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag. It has been submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged with a view to pressurize the petitioners to withdraw their case. It has also been contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are vague and improbable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

So far as the first contention raised in the petition is concerned, a perusal of the impugned FIR clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. In the FIR it is clearly alleged that petitioner No.2 has extorted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant-respondent No.5 and that the said occurrence took place at Soaf Shali, Kokernag in the house of Ashiq Hussain. In the complaint it is also alleged that the petitioners are putting the complainant under the fear to cause injury to his reputation by implicating him in a false case and demanding money from him.

Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the impugned FIR disclosing commission of cognizable offences. The contention of the petitioners that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are vague, is without any substance.

It has been next contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been filed as a counter blast to the challan for offences under Section 376 D, 506, 509, 120-B IPC and Section 166 IT Act which has been lodged at the instance of petitioner No.1, in order to pressurize her to withdraw the said case. In this regard it is to be noted that the complainant is not an accused in the said challan. It is not shown as to how the complainant is connected with the said case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to even point out as to what is the relationship of the complainant with the accused in the aforesaid challan. Thus, it cannot be stated that the impugned FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the challan. Even, if it is assumed that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant with a mala fide intention, the said aspect of the matter can also be investigated by the investigating agency during the course of investigation of the impugned FIR.

It is a settled law that the investigating agency has a statutory duty to investigate an FIR and take the same to its logical conclusion. High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C would interfere in the investigation in rare cases where it appears to the Court that continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

In the instant case, as already noted, the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and, as such, it would not be appropriate for this Court to scuttle the investigation of the impugned FIR. It is thus not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR. .

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.