Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. vs U. T. of J&K & Ors.

The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, have challenged charge sheet arising out of FIR bearing No. 31/2019 for offences under sections 431 and 341 IPC registered with Police Station, Satwari.

It appears that the complainants claiming to be the inhabitants of Panchayat Chatha Farm, filed an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate(CJM), Jammu. In the said application, it was alleged that on the basis of the representation made by the inhabitants of Chatha Farm, a lane was authorized to be constructed from the house of Jagdev Singh (Happy) to the house of Hardeep Singh (Kaka) by the Block Development Officer(BDO), Satwari vide his letter No. BDR/S/2014-15/122-125 dated 31.01.2015 at an estimated cost of ₹3.6 lacs under MGNREGA. The construction of the protection wall/road was also approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Development Jammu vide his order dated 17.03.2015. Accordingly, the protection wall/road was constructed in the year 2015 under the control and supervision of BDO. After the completion of the construction, the road was thrown open for the use of the inhabitants of Village Chatha Farm and the inhabitants of Village Chatha continued to use the said protection wall/road till January, 2016 without any interference and obstruction from any person.

However, in the later part of January, 2016, the petitioners/accused illegally and unlawfully started causing interference and obstruction in using of the road and they caused damage and obstruction to certain portion of the protection wall/road. It was alleged in the application that with regard to the aforesaid incident, an application was made by the inhabitants before the Assistant Commissioner Development, Jammu, who in turn directed BDO Satwari, Jammu to get the site inspected and take appropriate measures. The officer visited the site and prepared the site report, in which he observed that the road has been damaged. A similar report with regard to the damage caused to the road along with names of persons responsible for the same was furnished by the Naib Sarpanch to the Sub Divisional Magistrate(SDM), Jammu South vide letter dated 03.02.2016. It was alleged that the road has been deliberately damaged by the petitioners with a view to cause loss to the Government property. 4. It has further been submitted that SDM South vide letter dated 25.02.216, asked the BDO Satwari to lodge an FIR with Police Station, Satwari against the culprits. Pursuant thereto, a letter was forwarded to SHO Satwari seeking registration of the FIR. However, the SHO did not take any action against the culprits which prompted the complainants to approach SDM Gangyal. Even thereafter, nothing was done by the Government Officials and no FIR was lodged. It is in these circumstances that the applicants/complainants approached the CJM, Jammu seeking registration of the FIR against the culprits.

It seems that the learned CJM made an endorsement on the application on 07.12.2018, which reads as under:

Upon receipt of the complaint, endorsed by CJM, Jammu, SHO Police Station, Satwari registered the FIR bearing No. 31/2019 and after conducting investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners.

Challenge has been launched against the charge sheet by the petitioners, on the grounds that the Police has acted unfairly in registering the FIR without caring about the mandate of the order passed by the learned CJM, Jammu, which provided for verification of the facts. Thus, according to the petitioners, the investigation in the challan is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It has further been contended that a complaint was lodged against respondent No. 3 and his brothers for commission of offence of trespass and mischief over the land of the petitioners but no action has been taken by the Police on the said complaint.

According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3 and BDO Satwari are guilty of misappropriation of State funds because they have illegally raised construction on the land of the petitioners. It has been submitted that there is a dispute to civil nature with regard to the land on which the road was constructed illegally and a writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court in this regard. It has been contended that the trial of the case in the facts and circumstances is unwarranted and sheer abuse of process of law.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

So far as first ground urged by the petitioners, is concerned, it is true that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has, while entertaining the application of the complainants filed under section 156(3) CrPC(now 175(3) BNSS) forwarded the same to SHO Police Station, Satwari with a direction to verify the facts as the occurrence has taken place in January, 2016 and the complaint was made on 09.12.2018. Ordinarily the Investigating Agency should have first conducted a preliminary verification before registration of the FIR, as it is always advisable to hold a preliminary verification in cases where the FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay from the date of occurrence. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v Government of Utter Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, has categorized the cases where there is delay in lodging the report amongst those where preliminary verification is desirable, but this does not mean that in every case, where there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the Police is divested of his power to register an FIR, if otherwise the Investigating Agency is convinced that the contents of the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence.

In any case, the petitioners have approached this Court at a stage when the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been laid before the Court. Had it been a case, where the petitioners had approached this Court, immediately after the registration of the FIR, perhaps this Court could have come to their rescue. Once the investigation has been concluded, and charge sheet has been laid before the Court, there is no justification for this Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to quash the FIR and the charge sheet at this stage, merely, because no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Police before registering the FIR. The Supreme Court in Anurag Bhatnagar and another v State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2025 INSC 895, has held that once much water was flown down the bridge subsequent to the order of the registration of FIR, giving rise to a fresh cause of action to challenge the charge sheet, the High Court would be right in refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so as to interfere with the FIR once the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

Coming to the merits of the case. If we have a look at the trial court record, the Investigating Agency has, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, who include the inhabitants of Village Chatha Farm as also the statements of the then Gram Sewak of Rural Development Department, namely, Hans Raj and the then Block Development Officer, namely, Mukesh Sharma. Both these witnesses have stated that the road was constructed from the house of Jagdev Singh (Happy) to the house of Hardeep Singh (Kaka) in Village Chatha Farm by the Government at the cost of ₹3.6 lacs and the work was completed in the year 2014-15. BDO Mukesh Sharma, on the basis of record, has stated that the petitioners have damaged the constructed road and in this regard a communication was addressed to the SHO Police Station, Satwari for registration of FIR. Along with the charge sheet, the Investigating Agency has placed on record copies of the communications which go on to show that the road on spot was constructed by the Rural Development Department and it also appears that a series of communications have been addressed by the Rural Development Department to the Police Department for registration of an FIR right from the year 2016 complaining about the damage caused by the petitioners to the road. Thus, there is sufficient material on record of the charge sheet to prima facie show that the petitioners have indulged in activities resulting into damage of the public property, namely, road/retaining wall which is a cognizable offence.

The contention of the petitioners that the land over which the road has been constructed, belongs to them and a dispute in this regard is pending before this Court in another writ petition, would not have any impact on the present persecution, because even if, it is assumed that the Officials of the Rural Development Department have utilized the land of the petitioners for construction of the road without adopting due course of law, still then they are not justified in damaging the public property. The only course open to the petitioners was to approach the Court, which they have done by filing a writ petition. The petitioners cannot take law into their own hands and damage the public property and if they have done it, certainly it would amount to commission of a cognizable offence. Then the allegations made against the petitioners need to be tried by a court of law in accordance with law and the petitioners will have the opportunity of putting up their defence before the court at the appropriate stage.

For all what has been said, analyzed and discussed hereinabove, I do not find this to be a fit case, in which, this Court should exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C.(now section 528 BNSS) to quash the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, being found bereft of merit.