Sarv Bandhu And Another vs State Of J&K And Another

Puneet Gupta, J

The petitioners seek quashment of FIR No.30/2016 registered with Crime Branch, Jammu for offences including 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition mentions the civil cases pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also certain criminal proceedings initiated by the parties, in addition to the one which is under challenge in the present petition. The sum and substance of the present petition is that the civil case pertaining to Adoption Deed dated 02.06.1989 is pending disposal before the Court of learned City Judge, Jammu, therefore, the FIR filed by the respondent and under challenge in this petition is only an abuse of the process of law.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the parties are litigating in different courts of law and the present FIR is filed with a purpose to harass the petitioners.

The learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the FIR in question is pertaining to the Adoption Deed dated 02.06.1989 and the forgery committed in respect of the said Adoption Deed is in picture. The civil proceedings pending between the parties shall not come in the way of the respondents to pursue the remedy by way of criminal proceedings.

It is made out from the pleadings that the two Adoption Deeds have entangled the parties in the court of law. The one Adoption Deed pertains to the adoption of petitioner-Sarv Bandhu and is dated 02.06.1989 and the other one pertains to the adoption of Gita Devi in the year 1992 executed by the respondent no.2. The controversy in the present case lies in the narrow compass and pertains to Adoption Deed of 1989.

It may be submitted herein that the compliance report has been filed by the Investigating Agency in the matter in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings. The report from Forensic Science qua the Adoption deed dated 02.6.1989 has been received by the Investigating Agency. As per the statue report filed the deed as per the investigation does not appear to be genuine one on account of FSL opinion and the other record available with it. This court is not to finally determine in the investigation stage as to whether the Adoption Deed which is under challenge in the present petition is genuine or not. The court will not substitute its opinion and deny the investigating agency its due role in the matter.

The court is not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that as Adoption Deed is subject matter before the civil court as such the lodging of the FIR by itself an abuse of the process of law.

As far as the present case is concerned, the forgery of document in question is at the forefront. The filing of the civil proceedings and the filing of the FIR are entirely different proceedings and both the proceedings can go together. It is always convenient to argue that as one proceeding is pending between the parties the other proceedings are not competent one. The contours of civil proceedings are different from the criminal one.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is also to the effect that the present FIR has been filed after twenty six years of the Adoption Deed as a measure of vendetta and harassment by the respondent No.2. The court is not inclined to accept this argument of learned counsel for the petitioners so far as the present case is concerned so as to persuade the court to exercise inherent powers under section 482 CR.P.C. The alleged forgery of the document and its challenge by the party aggrieved in criminal proceedings is option of the party which the court cannot stop the party from exercising the same by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Hon’ble Apex court in SLP (CRL) No.2953 of 2022 titled Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. Vs. State of U. P. and Anr. decided on 22.4.2022 has held that the court cannot quash proceedings on the asking of the party and it is only in exceptional circumstances that the High Court will step in and quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The argument that FIR is abuse of the process of law is misplaced.

The abuse of the legal process should be visible and discernible which is absent in the present case. The allegations of forgery/fraud as alleged in the FIR cannot be truncated by quashing the FIR and the matter has to be taken to its logical conclusion by the Investigating Agency. The court finds no reason to quash the FIR challenged in the present petition.

The petition is without any substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.