Ram Lal and others vs UT of J&K and others

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 582 BNSS, for quashing of impugned FIR No. 51/2024 dated 04.06.2024 for the commission of the offences punishable under section 323/382/451/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu against them on the complaint of respondent No. 3.

It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 is a retired government servant, petitioner No. 2 is a housewife and petitioner No. 3 is a student; that they were executing renovation work of their house and on 24.04.2023 at about 5.30 pm, one person came at the residence of the petitioners, pretending himself as an employee of Jammu Municipal Corporation, to inform that he received a complaint against the petitioners from the respondent No. 3, that in the meantime, respondent No. 3 along with his son forcibly entered the house of the petitioners with criminal intention and attacked them with bricks and iron rod and inflicted injuries on the persons of the petitioners for which a case registered against the respondent No. 3 and his son.

It was alleged that as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners, respondent also attempted to lodge a counter case against them and approached police; that when SHO, Police Station, Gangyal and SSP, Jammu did not agree to register the case, respondent No. 3 filed an application before the learned Magistrate, in terms of section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the petitioners entered the house of the respondent No. 3, with lathi and iron rod and beat him up and his other family members; that on the basis of the said application, the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax), Jammu vide order dated 06.06.2023 directed the respondent No. 2 to forthwith investigate the matter under law. Pursuant to orders passed, a status report was filed before the learned Magistrate, stating that an I.O visited the place of the occurrence on spot and investigated the matter and after doing the needful, did not find any reasonable ground on which he could state that the offence has been committed by the petitioners.

The impugned FIR has been challenged on the grounds that the facts pleaded therein did not disclose the commission of any offence; that the respondent No. 3 got the impugned FIR registered in vengeance, to save himself from the conviction; that it were the petitioners, who were threatened, attacked and beaten by the respondent No. 3, after trespassing in their house; that the lodging of the impugned FIR amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Lastly, it has been prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed.

Respondent No. 1-UT has filed the objections, asserting therein that on 06.06.2024, in pursuance of the directions under Section 156(3) CrPC issued by the court of learned Magistrate, a case FIR No. 51/2024 was registered at Police Station, Gangyal against the petitioners and the investigation was entrusted to Aaqib Lateef; that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan, and recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 CrPC. Finally, it is prayed the petition be dismissed.

Respondent No. 3 has also filed his objections, asserting therein that the alleged compromise purportedly executed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 does not pertain to the subject matter of the present petition, in fact, it pertains only to the dispute concerning construction work and the ramp between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3; that the compromise neither makes any reference to the proceedings involved in the present petition nor records any settlement regarding the allegations, qua the subject matter of the present petition, therefore, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the said compromise to seek quashing of impugned FIR; that the respondent No. 3, specifically, denies that any compromise was ever executed in respect of the subject matter of the present petition, as alleged by the petitioners, thus, the present petition is based on a deliberate misinterpretation and misreading of the alleged compromise. Lastly, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.

Perusal of the status report filed by the respondents, reveals that during the course of investigation, IO visited the spot, conducted preliminary enquiry and per the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, the offences under sections 451/323/34/504/506/382 IPC were made out against the petitioners, who were granted bail by the learned Magistrate; that during enquiry, the petitioners did not disclose anything about snatched mangal sutra as such offence under section 201 IPC was also invoked in the case; that the investigation of the case has been completed and the challan of this instant case, awaits the order of this Court, to be laid, before the court of law.

The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the case registered vide impugned FIR is the counter blast of an earlier FIR No. 57/2023 registered on the complaint of one of the petitioners against the complainant party herein appears to be a misplaced submission as an offence allegedly committed on 02.07.2024 cannot be stated to be a counter blast to an FIR registered with regard to an occurrence of 14.05.2023 after more than one years.

It is an admitted case that the parties were at loggerheads and had a landed dispute with them, which had resulted into various fights between them, therefore, on the basis of a complaint earlier filed by the petitioners herein against the complainant party, cannot be made the basis to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising out of it. It is not the case that impugned FIR has arisen out of the same occurence so as to warrant consideration of the merits of the case with regard to the counter case. It will be in the interest of justice that the investigating agency is given a free hand to investigate the matter and in case the chargesheet is laid, the trial court would be competent to address all the issues raised in this petition at the time of consideration of the charge.

The petition, for the aforesaid reasons, is found to be without any merit and substance and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s).