ROMESH CHANDER & ANR vs MANOJ KUMAR

Petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under Section -A Cr. P. C. to seek quashing of complaint filed against them by the respondent

(complainant) in the court of leaned Special Mobile Magistrate, Electricity, Jammu on 11.10.2012 as also the cognizance and the proceedings therein by the learned Magistrate.

Heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the record.

The impugned complaint states that the respondent’s mother was harassed by the petitioners by encroaching upon her land so the respondent obtained an order from the court on 06.12.2010 in the name of his mother directing maintenance of status quo. The order was executed through Police Post, TalabTillo, Jammu. On 10.10.2012 the petitioners entered the house of the respondent in order to cause insult to him but he advised them not to take law in their hands. On 11.10.2012 when the respondent, who is Advocate by profession, was on his way to the courts the petitioners wrongfully restrained him and threatened to kill him or his family members. They declared that “they don’t obey any rule and regulation of law of court and further declared that in case you filed complaint against them or initiate any proceedings against them, then, they will not spare you and they kill you or your family members.” The learned Magistrate took cognizance in the complaint, recorded initial statement of the complainant and ordered issuance of process against both the petitioners.

The petitioners after entering appearance before the trial court and taking part in the proceedings for some time approached this Court to seek quashing of the complaint and the proceedings earlier in 561-A No. 169/2013. The petition filed at that stage was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the trial court to consider the application for dropping of the proceedings to be filed by the petitioners (accused), if

any. The petitioners filed application for dropping of the proceedings before the learned trial court, which, however, was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 31.01.2014, taking the view that the process was not issued in a mechanical or routine manner but was based on facts pleaded and supported in the complaint and that dropping of proceedings is not possible in a warrant trial.

The petitioners have, thus, approached this Court afresh to seek quashing of the complaint as also cognizance and the entire proceedings taken by the learned Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the averments in the petition argued precisely but vehemently that filing of the complaint and commencement of the proceedings before the learned trial court is sheer abuse of the process of the court as it has its origin and motivation in the dispute about a piece of land measuring 7 marlas purchased by their sister, Sunita Kumari, who is a widow, adjoining the house of the respondent from its owner, Kharati Lal through a duly executed and registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.2012. Explaining from the averments in the petition, learned counsel submitted that the order dated 06.10.2012 (supra) directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot was obtained by the respondent ex parte, which was later modified by the same court vide its order dated 23.08.2013 by making it applicable only to a stretch of 1.5 feet of land lying at the rear of the house of the mother of the respondent. The respondent after realizing that petitioners’ sister has a valid title in her favour, got a suit filed by his mother against the petitioners and another seeking declaration about the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners’ sister as null and void in which no stay, however, was granted by the trial court and not even by the appellate court in the appeal filed by the mother of the respondent, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.08.2014. Learned counsel argued further that having remained unsuccessful to scuttle the title of petitioners’ sister in the land purchased by her and raising of construction thereon, the respondent, who is an Advocate by profession, has resorted to file complaint against the petitioners to threaten and deter them against coming to the rescue of their widowed sister in protecting her legal right in the said land.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the complaint sufficiently discloses the commission of offences under Sections 341, 447 & 506 RPC by the petitioners and a case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the complaint and the proceedings before the trial court is not made out.

High Court under section 561-A of the Code (sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to seek quashing of an FIR and investigation by the police or any criminal proceedings pending in any court if it is shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that such proceedings is the abuse of process of the court or tends to cause miscarriage of justice or the quashing is otherwise required to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court though vast, by now is well defined and circumscribed by virtue of various authorities of the Supreme Court starting from R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 up to the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and many more after that.

It is well admitted that the petitioners and their sister on one hand and the respondent and his mother on the other are involved in a tedious civil litigation about the use of a small strip of land lying at the rear of the house of the mother of the respondent. Sufficient material has been produced by the petitioners in this petition to enable this court to peep into the genesis and broad fabric of the said litigation necessary for consideration in this petition. The sister of the petitioners has purchased 7 marlas of land adjoining the house of the mother of the respondent from one Kharati Lal by virtue of a sale deed executed on 15.11.2012 and registered on 16.11.2012. Respondent’s grievance as set out in the civil suit filed by his mother in the court of learned Sub-Judge (CJM), Jammu on 06.10.2012, which seems to be the beginning of the civil litigation, is that the petitioners and their sister in the process of raising construction on the said land are encroaching upon the 1.5 feet wide stretch of land, which his mother has left vacant at the rear of her house. In this case, learned trial court initially by its order dated 06.10.2012 issued ad interim direction directing both the sides to maintain status quo on spot and by its subsequent order dated 23.08.2013 directed the petitioners (therein defendants) to keep vacant the said stretch of land and further directed both the sides to maintain status quo on spot in respect thereof. The mother of the respondent has thereafter filed a suit against the petitioners and another seeking the sale deed executed in favour of the sister of the petitioners to be declared as null and void.

The occurrence alleged in the impugned complaint is stated to have taken place, firstly, on 10.10.2012 when the petitioners allegedly entered the house of the respondent to cause insult to him and secondly, on 11.10.2012 when the petitioners allegedly restrained the respondent when he was on his way to his work place, threatened to kill him or his family members and declared that they do not obey any law. What is evident from the narration given in the complaint is that whatever allegedly happened was an aftermath of the dispute relating to use of the small strip of land lying at the rear of the house of the respondent’s mother and civil litigation in this regard commenced by the respondent in the name of his mother against the petitioners. Such type of situation is likely to arise when two sides get involved in litigation about use of the land and prima facie do not amount to commission of offence in all the cases. Same seems to be the position in the present case also.

In backdrop of the dispute about the strip of land between the two sides and commencement of civil litigation by the respondent in this regard, the filing of criminal complaint by the respondent for the incident as it was alleged is abuse of process of the court and deserves indulgence of this court, also for the reason that such criminal proceedings tend to cause miscarriage of justice.

Viewed thus, this petition has merit and is allowed and therefore, the impugned complaint and the proceedings before the trial court are quashed.

Record of the trial court be remitted back along with a copy of this order.