Rozee And Others vs UT Of J&K And Others

Rajnesh Oswal, J

CRM(M) No. 88/2024

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 0006/2024 dated 11.01.2024 registered with Police Station, Raj Bagh, Kathua for commission of offences under Sections 341, 307, 147 & 148 IPC, at the instance of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the impugned FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and that the same has been lodged by the respondent No. 2 just to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. It is stated that from the plain reading of the FIR, no offence, as mentioned in the impugned FIR, is made out against the petitioners and the FIR has been lodged to strike a deal with the petitioners so that no action follows against the respondent No. 2 and his aides.

It has been further stated that on 11.01.2024, when the petitioners were going from Kathua to Haria Chak in a vehicle, borrowed from a friend, namely, Rahul and when they reached at Salarpur, certain persons, namely, Jatinder @ Munna and Sohan Lal @ Frooti alongwith some unknown persons stopped the car of the petitioners. They told the petitioners that the owner of the vehicle owed some money to them and as such, they would take the Car. The petitioners requested them against doing so, as they had borrowed the Car from Rahul to visit the market. This infuriated the respondent No. 2 and his aides and they started forcibly taking away the vehicle. In the process, the petitioners received injuries as they were beaten up and attacked by the respondent No. 2 and his aides. The petitioner No. 4 submitted a written complaint with the respondent No. 1 on 11.01.2024 but no action has been taken against the respondent No. 2 and his aides, but FIR impugned by the petitioners came to be registered against them to their utter shock and surprise. It is averred that on 17.01.2024, the respondent No. 2 alongwith his aides trespassed into the house of the petitioners and broke all the house hold things and set their house on fire, which led heavy loss to the petitioners and the entire house of the petitioners was gutted in fire, in respect of which, FIR bearing No. 0009/2024 dated 18.01.2024 was registered by the respondent No. 1.

The respondent No. 2 has filed the response, stating therein that the victim-Rajinder Kumar was brutally assaulted as a result of which serious head injuries were received by him and he was kept on ventilator support. Initially, the victim was admitted in the GMC, Kathua but later on shifted to hospital at Pathankot for specialised treatment. The victim has undergone two major surgeries and he has to undergo third surgery as well. It is further stated that all the four petitioners came to be captured in the CCTV footage while committing the crime, which clearly shows that all the petitioners alongwith other accused persons brutally attacked the victim and one Abhi and in order to counter the impugned FIR, a false and frivolous FIR came to be registered by the petitioner No. 1 by concocting a false story and in fact, the petitioners managed to lodge a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 0009/2024 under Sections 436/427 IPC. The said FIR has been registered only to pressurise the complainant to settle the matter. It is also stated that the victim was attacked with the baseball stick and iron rods. The statement of victim Rajinder Kumar has not been recorded by the Police as he has not fully recovered from the head injuries. The respondent No.2 has placed on record the medical record alongwith the response to substantiate his contentions.

The official respondent has not filed the response. However, pursuant to the direction of this Court, Investigating Officer, caused his appearance before the Court and produced the case diary.

Mr. Zulkar Nain Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that false and frivolous FIR has been registered against the petitioners in order to blackmail them and they have not been even named in the FIR registered by respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail in anticipation of arrest and the petitioners are ready to comply with all the conditions imposed in the event of grant of bail.

Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has argued that the victim Rajinder Kumar was brutally attacked by the petitioners and their associates, as a result of which he received serious head injuries, therefore, it is absolutely wrong that no case is made out against the petitioners and false and frivolous FIR has been registered against them. He further argued that the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail as the victim is still battling for his life.

Mr. Ravi Abrol, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the statement of the victim has not been recorded because he has not recovered from the injuries and even the weapons of offence have also not been recovered. He has further submitted that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve any concession of bail in anticipation of arrest.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the case diary.

The record reveals that on 11.01.2024, the applicant, namely, Sohan Lal, respondent No. 2 submitted an application with Police Station, Raj Bagh, wherein it has been stated that when one Rajinder Kumar S/o Madan Lal R/o Salalpur, District Kathua was going from home to Haria Chack, he was stopped on the way by Sooraj, his wife, mother and four or five friends. The names of his friends are Amish, Gopi, Badal, Laab, Raman and some unknown. All of them attacked Rajinder Kumar. They hit him on his head with iron rods. He suffered serious head injury and was admitted in Chouhan Hospital, Pathankot. On receipt of this application, FIR bearing No. 006/2024 under Sections 341/307/147/148 IPC was registered and the investigation was assigned to PSI Fazal Raja Dev.

During the course of the investigation, the investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence i.e. Haria Chack, Tehsil Marheen and on identification of the complainant and other eye witnesses, prepared site plan of place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The victim-Rajinder Kumar was already shifted to GMC Kathua, wherefrom he was further taken to Chouhan Hospital Pathankot for better medical treatment. The victim was in a critical condition and was admitted in ICU. The statement of complainant was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hiranagar. The CCTV footage near the place of occurrence was also obtained from the owner of Car Washing Point. As per the investigation, it was found that the victim Rajinder Kumar along with complainant Sohan Kumar and one other person, namely, Abhi were on their way to towards Haria Chack in a Car when they were stopped by the accused persons namely, Suraj Masih, Sahil, Kanchan, Roze, Rahul Masih, Sahil Nangla, Raman, Amish, Gopi, Sohail and Lovepreet Singh with a criminal intention near the house of accused Suraj. All the persons mentioned above started beating the victim and other person Abhi with fists and blows, baseball stick and iron rods. During the course of fight, the victim was brought near Car Washing Point, where a CCTV Camera was already installed and the major part of the fight was recorded in the said CCTV Camera. The victim was mercilessly beaten up by the said persons and he got serious head injuries as he was hit by baseball stick several times on his head. Accused Kanchan was also having iron rod. Accused Rahul Masih and Sahil Nangla were arrested in the case and they were subsequently granted bail by the JMIC, Hiranagar. During the course of investigation, the involvement of another accused namely, Danial also surfaced and he too was arrested for providing shelter to accused Suraj Masih S/o Roshan Masih and Kanchan W/o Suraj Masih in his home at Khanaura Hoshiarpur. Accordingly, offence under Section 212 IPC was proved against Danial S/o Roop Lal, who was bailed out later. The record further depicts that the weapons of offence have not been recovered and even the statement of the injured Rajinder Kumar has not been recorded as he had not recovered from the head injuries and the investigation was stayed vide order dated 19.02.2024. The case diary also contains the pen drive having CCTV footage.

After having gone through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners, rather the Investigating Officer has collected abundant evidence on record pointing towards the commission of offence and this Court does not find it necessary to go into detail in respect of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners have no case at all for quashing of the FIR. The registration of the subsequent FIR bearing No. 0009/2024 dated 18.01.2024 under Section 436/427 IPC in respect of alleged occurrence on 17.01.2024 does not have any bearing on the FIR impugned in the present petition, as the date of occurrence in the impugned FIR is much before the date of alleged occurrence as mentioned in the FIR No. 0009/2024.

Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Interim direction shall stand vacated.

Bail App No.21/2024

This is application seeking bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No. 0006/2024. As already discussed above, there are very serious allegations against the petitioners, except the petitioner No.1, having assaulted the victim Rajinder Kumar, who has not recovered from the injuries and even the weapons of offence i.e. baseball stick and rods, have not been recovered. The petitioner No.1 is a lady of 44 years of age and there are no allegations that she assaulted any of the victims/injured with any object but there are allegations against the petitioner No.4, who is also a lady for assaulting Abhi with rod.

In view of above, the petitioners, except the petitioner No. 1, do not deserve any concession of bail in anticipation of arrest. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is rejected and the interim protection from arrest is granted to the petitioner No.1, by providing that in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. That she will furnish bail bonds for an amount of Rs. 25,000/ and personal bond of like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

b. That she will appear before Investigating Officer on 03.05.2024 from 10 A.M to 12 noon and thereafter as and when required.

c. That she will not contact the prosecution witnesses either physically or through any other mode.

d. That she will not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of the I.O.

e. That in the event any recovery is affected from her, she shall be deemed to be in custody within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The learned counsel for the official respondent shall either file status report or inform this court in respect of compliance of above mentioned conditions by the petitioner No.1 on the next date of hearing.

List this bail application on 10.05.2024.

Case diary be returned to Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG.