Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ajay Kumar Sareen Aged 27 Years vs The U.T Of Jammu And Kashmir Through The … on 26 December, 2024
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Pronounced on 26.12.2024
Case No.:- CRM(M) No. 466/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 159/2024
CRM(M) No. 206/2024
CRM(M) No. 466/2024
Ajay Kumar Sareen aged 27 years, son of Sanjeev Kumar Sareen resident of H.
No. 63, Gali Khilonia, Pacca Danga, Jammu.
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal,
Advocate.
Vs
1. The U.T of Jammu and Kashmir through the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Range, Jammu.
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Janipur, District Jammu.
3. Ragini Rajput W/o Sh. Rohit Krishan Bhat R/o H. No. 37 Sector-4, Lower
Roop Nagar, Jammu
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aditya Badyal, Adv. for R-3.
CRM(M) No. 159/2024
1. Anmol Slathia, age 27 years, S/o Rakesh Singh Slathia, R/o H. No. 239,
Raj Patana Gali, Purani Mandi, Jammu.
2. Manik Gupta, age 30 years S/o Tarsem Gupta R/o H. No. 55 Partap Garh,
Jammu.
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin
Gupta, Advocate.
Vs
2 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
1. U.T of Jammu and Kashmir through In-charge Police Station, Pacca
Danga, Jammu.
2. Rekha Rani Sareen, W/o Sanjeev Kumar Sareen, R/o Gali Khilona, Pacca
Danga, Jammu.
3. Ajay Kumar Sareen S/o Sanjeev Kumar Sareen, R/o Gali Khilona, Pacca
Danga, Jammu.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1.
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal,
Advocate for R-2 and 3.
CRM(M) No. 206/2024
Rohit Krishan Bhat, age 38 years S/o Ram Krishan Bhat, R/o H. No. 37, Lower
Roop Nagar, Jammu.
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin
Gupta, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through In charge Police Station,
Janipur, Jammu.
2. Ajay Kumar Sareen S/o Sanjeev Kumar Sareen R/o Gali Khilona, Pacca
Danga, Jammu.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG for R-1.
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal,
Advocate for R-2.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. A final police report, known in popular practice & parlance as
challan, under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (now corresponding to section 193 of the Bharatiya
3 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS, 2023 ) being an outcome of
a police investigation if presented bearing lame and loose-end
facts based narrative for cognizance and trial purpose before a
criminal court, then same renders itself self-exposed to suffer a
reality check, sooner than later, be it before the very criminal
court before which it gets presented and filed or even when
same happens to come under scanner of this court’s inherent
jurisdiction reserved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973 [now corresponding section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023]. The
principle which comes to and must come to checkmate a
criminal case bearing such an underlying perverted police
investigation is that administration of justice and ends of
justice are meant to be served and saved at all costs from
suffering frustration and becoming a casualty.
2. The present three cases are live exhibit of an abuse of process
of law with relish by resort to unabashed fabrication of and
flirtation with facts at the end of the protagonists involved in
said three cases, and equally nursed and prompted by dereism
of investigative approach by the Police Station Janipur,
Jammu, acting and conducting as if investigation of a criminal
case is an exercise in theatrics with superficiality involving set
standard compilation of papers by stitching of bunch of so
called examinational statement/s of person/s to be cited as
prosecution witness/es, seizure memo/s, arrest memo/s etc.,
4 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
least mindful and bothered as to whether purported fact/s, as
stated in a final police report and supporting witnesses’
statement/s, is/are leading and connecting, immediately
and/or intermediately, with relevant fact/s to present a
coherent and cohesive factual narrative demonstrating not
only the commission of offence/s but also culpability of
person/s found and presented as accused to stand trial.
3. The present three cases, i.e., CRM(M) No. 159/2024 filed by
Anmol Slathia & Manik Gupta, CRM(M) No. 206/2024 filed by
Rohit Krishan Bhat, and CRM(M) No. 466/2024 filed by Ajay
Kumar Sareen, all seeking and invoking inherent jurisdiction
of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C, have a purported
shared factual chronology and as such the purported fact line
related and leading to the institution of the said three cases
needs to be set out first before coming to deal with
adjudication of the said three petitions.
4. This Court would track and follow facts and circumstances, in
terms of reference, by the chronology in which same have
happened or alleged to have happened and taken place so as
not to lose the sense of script underlying said three cases and
the adjudication to be arrived at.
5. This Court is taking liberty of referring to the parties figuring
in said three cases, petitioner wise and respondent wise, by
their names otherwise it would be confusing to figure out
who’s who. Ajay Kumar Sareen is the petitioner in CRM(M)
5 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
No. 466/2024, Ragini Rajput is the respondent No. 3 in
CRM(M) No. 466/2024, Rohit Kumar Bhat is the petitioner
in CRM(M) No. 206/2024and whereas Ajay Kumar Sareen is
also the respondent in CRM(M) No. 206/2024 and Anmol
Slathia and Manik Gupta, are the petitioners in CRM(M) No.
159/2024.
6. Ajay Kumar Sareen is said to be a probationary Public
Prosecutor (PP) and also selected to be Civil Judge (Junior
Division) though not yet appointed.
7. Ajay Kumar Sareen, came forward with a registration of FIR
No. 20/2024 dated 23.01.2024 with the Police Station of
Janipur, Jammu.
8. FIR No. 20 of 2024 was registered on the basis of a self-written
complaint by Ajay Kumar Sareen. The contents of said FIR are
reproduced herein so as to self-state its narrative and
perspective: –
“To
SHO Police Station Janipur
Subject: Lodging of FIR against Rohit Bhat S/o R K
Bhat R/o Paloura, Jammu Mob No. 9086781690 as he
tried to kill meSir. With due respect I want to state that I was on my
way back from lower Roop Nagar after some work to
my home along with my friend Akshay Kumar S/o
Darshan Kumar R/o Purani Mandi Jammu on his
Scooty Activa bearing No. JK02BT-2124 when I
reached nearby Ladakhi Hostel, suddenly one Mr.
Rohit Bhat S/o R.K. Bhat R/o Paloura Jammu came on
Scooty and stopped my way and attached me with
6 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024something like iron kada on my head and started
beating me mercilessly in order to kill me whereas
people from nearby came and they along with my
friend saved my life from him and I ran away and later
informed the Police about the incident and they took
me to Sarwal Hospital and now I have come to this
Police Station from hospital. I was unconscious.
Kindly lodge necessary FIR against the said person as I
am feared of being killed by him and oblige.
Yours Sincerely Ajay Kumar Sareen S/o Sanjeev
Kumar Sareen R/o 63, Gali Khilonia, Pacca Danga
Jammu (7006677084) Dt:- 23.01.2024.”
9. In the FIR No. 20/2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen, does not
identify as to who actually is Rohit Bhat S/o R.K. Bhat R/o
Paloura Jammu, a stranger or a known person, being
accused of allegedly coming to assault him leaving him
injured and what is the background in the context of which
said Rohit Bhat ventured to commit criminal wrong against
the person of Ajay Kumar Sareen.
10. Furthermore, in the FIR No. 20/2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen
even missed to divulge the time of alleged incident involving
physical aggression and assault upon his person by said
Rohit Bhat. Thus, said FIR reporting came to take place with
deficient input of some very essential facts which otherwise
ought to have come unsolicited from Ajay Kumar Sareen,
particularly when he himself is a Public Prosecutor well
knowing the importance of true a d timely disclosure of facts.
7 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
11. FIR No. 20 of 2024 of the Police Station Janipur came to be
assigned by the SHO to ASI Mohi-Din for investigation.
12. The registration of said FIR No. 20/2024 came to take place
on 23.01.2024 at 10.20 p.m. whereas the alleged incident, as
per the said FIR as noticed already, had taken place without
any mention of time.
13. Thus, for the intervening period of the alleged incident and
registration of FIR No. 20 of 2024 on 23/01/2024, Ajay
Kumar Sareen, is reported to have been first taken to Sarwal
Hospital by SPO Surinder Kumar of the Police Station
Janipur whereupon an MLC Case No. 1275 dated 23.01.2024
was registered for attending upon the injured Ajay Kumar
Sareen.
14. It is only after Ajay Kumar Sareen getting medical attention
that the FIR No. 20/2024 came to be registered at 10.20 p.m.
by the Janipur Police Station on the written complaint of Ajay
Kumar Sareen.
15. As per record of said MLC case No. 1275 of 23.01.2024, the
time of injury is 3.30 p.m. and time of medical opinion/
report is 5.30 p.m. reporting the injury to be simple in nature
caused by a blunt object, meaning, thus, the alleged incident
must have happened just before or around about 3.30 p.m.
16. On the next day, i.e., 24.01.2024following the registration of
FIR No. 20 of 2024 dated 23.01.2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen
came to be examined by the I.O ASI Mohi Din under section
8 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C)
in which Ajay Kumar Sareen came to state that the alleged
incident had taken place at 3.30 p.m.
17. In his statement, Ajay Kumar Sareen did not recollect to state
as to by use of which object the assaulter Rohit Bhat had
come to cause infliction of injury on Ajay Kumar Sareen’s
head leaving him getting stitches.
18. In his said statement, Ajay Kumar Sareen comes to divulge
that there is some family enmity actuated with which the
assaulter Rohit Kumar Bhat mischievously waylaid Ajay
Kumar Sareen assaulting and injuring him.
19. Ajay Kumar Sareen came to state that it is his friend-Akshay
Kumar, on whose Scooty he (Ajay Kumar Sareen) was pillion
riding, and other On-lookers who timely intervened to save
him i.e.,Ajay Kumar Sareen from the hands of assaulter Rohit
Bhat who is referred to be a very strong/evil headed person
having no respect for the law.
20. Ajay Kumar Sareen came to introduce mention of some
persons in his statement to I.O ASI Mohi Din saying that
before the alleged incident, Ragini Rajput had told him (Ajay
Kumar Sareen), to speak to her brother Anmol Slathia who is
a childhood friend of Ajay Kumar Sareen but he refused to
speak to Anmol Slathia on the asking of Ragini Rajput
because Anmol Slathia is a drug addict and Ajay Kumar
Sareen was maintaining no equation with said Anmol Slathia.
9 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
21. Ajay Kumar Sareen further stated that it is Anmol Slathia
who tipped-off Rohit Bhat, the assaulter that Ajay Kumar
Sareen was on his way to Lower Roop Nagar.
22. Ajay Kumar Sareen in his statement under section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 further stated to the I.O
ASI Mohi Din that in his presence, Ragini Rajput came to get
a call from Rohit Bhat and thereafter she left in her vehicle
whereafter he (Ajay Kumar Sareen, the petitioner in CRM(M)
No. 466/2024) along with his friend Akshay Kumar riding on
his Scooty proceeded for his house when upon reaching near
Ladakh Hostel, Rohit Bhat came to waylaid Ajay Kumar
Sareen and assaulted him leaving him injured with an alleged
use of an iron kada.
23. In his entire 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on next day of
24.01.2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen had kept mum in disclosing
as to what was the relation of Rohit Bhat with Ragini Rajput
and which family enmity led Rohit Bhat to assault him.
24. Furthermore, Ajay Kumar Sareen, did not divulge as to how
come he was having the knowledge of the fact that Rohit
Kumar Bhat was son of R.K Bhat and was a resident of
Paloura without mentioning any further particulars as to his
residential particulars at least for leading the I.O ASI Mohi
Din to confirm the exact identity and location of
assaulter/accused Rohit Bhat so as to track and find him.
10 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
25. In his statement recorded on 24.01.2024 under section 161
Cr.P.C 1973, Ajay Kumar Sareen did not make any factual
reference whatsoever for the notice of I.O ASI Mohi Din that
one Anmol Slathia, joined by Manik Gupta, had indulged in
any culpable act of omission and commission against his
mother, namely Rekha Rani on 23.01.2024.
26. It is more intriguing rather than normal to note that Ajay
Kumar Sareen in lodging his hand written complaint which
got reduced into FIR No. 20/2024 came to mention Mobile
No. 9086781690 of accused Rohit Bhat confirming thereby
some previous acquaintance of Ajay Kumar Sareen with Rohit
Bhat, the assaulter, was there to the extent of Ajay Kumar
Sareen knowing said mobile number of Rohit Bhat but still in
his FIR getting registered on 23.01.2024 at 10 p.m., Ajay
Kumar Sareen had kept important factual inputs closed to
his chest from being disclosed in the FIR thereby presenting a
picture which was not supplying full and true facts otherwise
well known to Ajay Kumar Sareen at the very time of
registration of his complaint as FIR.
27. In the name of investigation with respect to FIR No. 20 of
2024, the I.O ASI Mohi Din, on 24.01.2024, came to examine
Ajay Kumar Sareen and prepared a site map of the alleged
occurrence without any further investigation of the day.
28. In his examination under section 161 Cr.P.C, Ajay Kumar
Sareen came out giving a stretched narrative in connection
11 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
with the alleged incident of 23/01/2024 adding that before
the incident of assault by Rohit Bhat, Ragini Rajput had
verbal engagement with him (Ajay Kumar Sareen) without
disclosing whereat this meeting between the two had taken
place and what for.
29. Thus, on the basis of the investigation up to this stage of
examining Ajay Kumar Sareen, I.O ASI Mohi Din did not have
any factual input to work out the actual identity of Rohit Bhat
named as the accused in FIR No. 20 of 2024 and also no clue
about his whereabouts in the Case Diary of 24.01.2024.
30. This Court has not come across a fact from the Case Diary file
that I.O ASI Mohi Din had made any phone call to accused
Rohit Bhat at the given phone number as mentioned in the
complaint/FIR by Ajay Kumar Sareen.
31. On the other hand, a simultaneous development was taking
place on 24.01.2024 in the manner that Rohit Krishan Bhat
S/o Ram Krishan Bhat R/o House No. 37, Sector 4 Lower
Roop Nagar, Jammu, on his own came to apply for grant of
anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C, 1973 before the
Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu by filing an
application to said effect through an advocate which came to
be transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Jammu on its file No. 103/2024 wherein in terms of an order
dated 24.01.2024, Rohit Krishan Bhat came to be granted
interim pre-arrest bail subject to the terms and conditions.
12 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
32. There is a certified copy of the said bail application so filed by
Rohit Krishan Bhat on file No. 103/2024 before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu which leaves this Court
wondering as to what was the unstated cause at the end of
Rohit Krishan Bhat, the applicant, for suffering an
apprehension of registration of a false and frivolous FIR
against him that too by identifying the Janipur Police Station
and to subject him to suffer arrest meaning thereby Rohit
Krishan Bhat, as being applicant in the said pre-arrest bail
application, was either fully aware of the incident which was
likely to result in registration of an FIR against him that too
by the Janipur Police Station and none else or he was so
naive that he ventured to act on a misplaced apprehension
fed by someone that he was being wanted in a false and
frivolous case against him by the Police Station Janipur,
Jammu.
33. In his said application for seeking anticipatory bail, Rohit
Krishan Bhat did not divulge even by whispering a fact as to
whether he had ever received any call/message from the
Police Station Janipur to appear before it in connection with
an FIR lodged by one Ajay Kumar Sareen for an alleged
incident in which one Rohit Bhat s/o R.K. Bhat R/o Paloura
stood named.
34. Said Rohit Krishan Bhat came to report himself on
24.01.2024 at the Police Station, Janipur at 18.10 hrs. (6.10
13 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
p.m.) and to that effect I.O ASI Mohi Din came to refer his
attendance in relation to the investigation of FIR No. 20 of
2024 so lodged by Ajay Kumar Sareen meaning thereby as if
I.O ASI Mohi Din was self-knowing and assured of the fact
that Rohit Krishan Bhat had volunteered himself for
investigation only in the FIR No. 20 of 2024 whereas neither
in his bail application nor in the anticipatory bail order any
reference of FIR No. 20 of 2024 was ever made.
35. Thus, for I.O ASI Mohi Din to take the identity of Rohit Bhat
S/o R.K Bhat R/o Paloura named as an accused in FIR No.
20 of 2024 by Ajay Kumar Sareen to be that Rohit Krishan
Bhat S/o Ram Krishan Bhat R/o H. No. 37 Sector No. 4,
Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu, reporting himself before the
Janipur Police Station with an order of pre arrest bail without
any reference to any particular criminal case, to be taken
under arrest by surrender in relation to FIR No. 20 of 2024 is
a fact which is all intriguing on the record of the case known
only to I.O ASI Mohi Din that too without any identification
got done from Ajay Kumar Sareen by calling him to the Police
Station as the same time when Rohit Krishan Bhatt and
Ragini Rajput had come reporting and submitting bail and
surety bond.
36. Said Rohit Krishan Bhat S/o Ram Krishan Bhat R/o H. No.
37 Sector No. 4 Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu also did not
agitate his readymade implication in the FIR No. 20 of 2024
14 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
as if he was beforehand knowing the fact that it is in FIR No.
20 of 2024 that his involvement was referred as an accused
by no one else than Ajay Kumar Sareen.
37. At the point of time of his reporting in the Police Station,
Janipur on 24.01.2024, Rohit Krishan Bhat S/o Ram Krishan
Bhat was accompanied by Ragini Rajpoot shown to be a
resident of H. No. 37 Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu as is borne
out from Arrest/Court Surrender Memo prepared by I.O ASI
Mohi Din by reference to FIR No. 0020/2024 against General
Diary number 021 dated 24.01.2024.
38. Both Rohit Krishan Bhat S/o Ram Krishan Bhat R/o H. No.
37 Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu and Ragini Rajput came to
submit personal bond as well as surety bond in the case
State through Ajay Kumar Sareen Vs. Rohit Krishan Bhat
thereby proving the fact that on 24.01.2024, Ragini Rajput
along with Rohit Krishan Bhat had actually reported
themselves at the Police Station, Janipur at 18.10 hrs. (6.10
p.m.) for doing the formality of self-surrender and furnishing
of bail bond and surety bond.
39. With respect to further investigation of FIR No. 20 of 2024 so
lodged by Ajay Kumar Sareen, I.O. ASI Mohi Din did not
conduct any investigation whatsoever for the next three days
i.e., 25.01.2024, 26.01.2024 and 27.01.2024 may be for
reasons related to the Republic Day arrangements though not
documented in the Case Diaries.
15 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
40. In connection with exercise of submission of bail and surety
bonds by Rohit Krishan Bhat and Ragini Rajput with respect
to his arrest by surrender in the case State through Ajay
Kumar Sareen Vs. Rohit Kumar Bhat, I.O ASI Mohi Din did
not make any entry in the Case Diary of the said date i.e.,
24.01.024 to the effect that both Rohit Krishan Bhat and
Ragini Rajput had narrated any incident from their end with
respect to an alleged incident or anything preceding thereto
which had resulted in registration of FIR No. 20 of 2024.
41. On the other hand, for very quirked development, Ajay Kumar
Sareen, after having been examined by I.O ASI Mohi Din in
terms of recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C on
24.01.2024, on the very next day i.e., 25.01.2024 rushed for
seeking an anticipatory bail in his favour before the court of
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu stating therein that
he came to be brutally attacked by one of the miscreants
causing serious head injury to him and that the opponent
party is trying to indulge him in a false and frivolous
FIR/counter FIR so as to harass him so that in future some
compromise can be made and in that regard apprehended
that Janipur Police Station is bent upon to arrest him as a
bargain with respect to FIR No. 20 of 2024 lodged by him.
42. In this application seeking anticipatory bail, Ajay Kumar
Sareen did not divulge any further details and, in fact, kept
16 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
sealed lips as to the background in which he was coming
forward with filing of the pre-arrest bail application.
43. The Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu came
to admit Ajay Kumar Sareen to anticipatory bail provided he
is not involved in any offence carrying punishment in excess
of 07 years. In this order dated 25.01.2024 granting pre-
arrest bail in favour of Ajay Kumar Sareen, the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Jammu had also excepted an offence
against a woman if alleged to have been committed by Ajay
Kumar Sareen.
44. On 28.01.2024, for reasons which are difficult to fathom from
any count of investigation, I.O ASI Mohi Din came to record in
addition to the statement of Akshay Kumar, the friend of Ajay
Kumar Sareen, and supposedly an eyewitness, the statements
of Rekha Rani-the mother of Ajay Kumar Sareen and Sanjeev
Sareen-the father of Ajay Kumar Sareen having nothing to do
with the alleged incident of 23/01/2024.
45. For what purpose and in which connection I.O ASI Mohi Din
was led to examine Rekha Rani and Sanjeev Kumar Sareen,
the mother and father of Ajay Kumar Sareen, in connection
with incident of 23.01.2024 is beyond comprehension even by
layman standard of reference when both were unrelated to
alleged incident of assault upon Ajay Kumar Sareen.
46. On the other hand, it equally defies understanding as to what
for I.O ASI Mohi Din did not examine on 24.01.2014 itself
17 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Akshay Kumar, the alleged eye witness and friend of Ajay
Kumar Sareen, on whose Scooty the said Ajay Kumar Sareen,
was riding when accused Rohit Bhat allegedly came to
pounce upon said Ajay Kumar Sareen and had allegedly left
him injured with an assault. I.O ASI Mohi Din left said
Akshay Kumar’s statement to be recorded only on
28.01.2024. From a perusal of the Case Diary, there is no
account coming for this delay in examining Akshay Kumar,
an alleged eye witness of the incident.
47. Thus, in the name of investigation of FIR No. 20 of 2024 what
I.O ASI Mohi Din did was, in fact, a ritual of exercise of the
paper work of 161 Cr.P.C statements of four persons as
witnesses i.e., Ajay Kumar Sareen, his friend Akshay Kumar,
Rekha Rani (mother) and Sanjeev Sareen (father) besides
doing attending routine work in the form of preparation of site
map of alleged place of incident on 24.01.2024, carrying out
Arrest-cum-Surrender related proceedings of Rohit Krishan
Bhat S/o Ram Krishan Bhat R/o H. No. 37 Lower Roop
Nagar, Jammu who otherwise had come on his own to the
Police Station, Janipur without bearing any reference as to in
which case connection he, accompanied by Ragini Rajput,
had come to suffer the said arrest by surrender but
nevertheless I.O ASI Mohi Din got them arrested by reference
to FIR No. 20 of 2024 on 24.01.2024 at 18.10 hrs., but
18 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
preparing the Arrest/Court Surrender Memo dated
05.02.2024.
48. In the name of investigation, I.O ASI Mohi Din prepared a
fard shinakhat mulzim without any reference to any
identification of named accused Rohit Bhat in FIR No. 0020 of
2024 having been done by Ajay Kumar Sareen.
49. While Ajay Kumar Sareen lodged FIR No. 0020 of 2024 with
the Police Station Janipur, Jammu was purportedly
undergoing investigation under I.O ASI Mohi Din in the
aforesaid sequence of facts but just after nine (9) days from
the alleged incident of 23.01.2024, which formed the basis for
registration of FIR No. 0020 of 2024 against said Rohit Bhat
at the instance of Ajay Kumar Sareen, Ragini Rajput wife of
Rohit Krishan Bhat R/o H. No. 37, Sector 4, Lower Roop
Nagar near Ladakhi Girls Hostel, Jammu came to register an
FIR No. 0024 dated 01.02.2024 with the same Janipur
Police Station, Jammu against Ajay Kumar Sareen, for alleged
commission of offences under sections 354,354-B and 354-D
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
50. Before this Court refers itself to the contents of this FIR No.
0024 of 2024 got so registered by said Ragini Rajput against
Ajay Kumar Sareen, it needs to be first highlighted as to in
what manner FIR No. 0024 of 2024 came to be so registered
with the Janipur Police Station, Jammu.
19 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
51. As observed herein before but needs to be reiterated herein
for the sake of refreshing the perspective that on 24.01.2024,
Ragini Rajput had accompanied Rohit Krishan Bhat at 18.10
hrs., visiting the Police Station Janipur, Jammu bearing the
anticipatory bail order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on the
application of Rohit Krishan Bhat and in that regard had
come to furnish her surety bond whereas Rohit Krishan Bhat
had furnished his personal bond before I.O ASI Mohi Din
seized of the investigation of FIR No. 0020/2024. So, there
cannot be any denial to the fact that Ragini Rajput, along
with Rohit Krishan Bhat, had a stay and time spent,
howsoever brief that may be, in the Police Station Janipur in
connection with the proceedings related to furnishing of
personal as well as surety bond on 24.01.2024.
52. There can also be no denial to the fact that Rohit Krishan
Bhat in his application for seeking anticipatory bail under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on
24.01.2024 before the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jammu had made no whisper of any incident
whatsoever of 23.01.2024 having taken place in the context of
any confrontation having taken place between Ajay Kumar
Sareen and Ragini Rajput or for that matter with him i.e.,
Rohit Krishan Bhat.
20 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
53. The tone and tenor of said anticipatory bail application is as if
Rohit Krishan Bhat was totally oblivious of any incident
having taken place on 23.01.2024 qua Ajay Kumar Sareen
but still caught worried to get an anticipatory bail order in his
favour from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu
against his apprehended arrest at the hands of none other
than Janipur Police Station without bearing any reference to
any criminal case registered or apprehended to be registered
against him.
54. At the end of Ragini Rajput, she activated herself to make
complaint against Ajay Kumar Sareen by purportedly
addressing four identically typed complaints to and in the
name of the Inspector General of Police, Jammu, the Senior
Superintendent of Police Jammu, the SHO Police Station,
Janipur and the Director General, Women and Child
Development J&K.
55. While first three complaints i.e., to the Inspector General of
Police Jammu, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu
and SHO Police Station, Janipur bearing signatures of
Ragini Rajput as complainant do not carry any date
whatsoever whereas the complaint addressed to the Director
General, Women and Child Development J&K bears
31.01.2024 as date.
56. Insofar as the complaint addressed to the SHO Police Station,
Janipur is concerned seeking registration of FIR, it bears an
21 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
endorsement dated 27.01.2024 purportedly by the Inspector
General of Police, Jammu meant for the Superintendent of
Police, Jammu bearing direction “please listen”.
57. Insofar as the complaint addressed to the Inspector General
of Police, Jammu for registration of FIR is concerned, it bears
an endorsement dated 30.01.2024 for the Superintendent of
Police, Jammu with a direction “please take appropriate
action”.
58. The complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Jammu bears an endorsement dated 30.01.2024
purportedly by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Jammu for the Superintendent of Police, City North with
direction “for n/a under rules”. This complaint bears receipt
No. Clt/DPOJ/24/PH-18 dated 30.01.2024. It further bears
an endorsement of the Superintendent of Police (North) dated
31.01.2024 addressed to the SHO, Police Station Janipur
with direction “to enquire into the matter and take
immediate action as per law” and bears receipt of the
Superintendent of Police Office No. Clt/1850/SPN dated
31.01.2024.
59. As observed hereinabove, as all the four complaints carry
identical text, as such for the facility of reference, it is
appropriate to reproduce herein below the one of the
complaints, which ultimately got registered as FIR, as it is so
as to bear in mind the perspective in which Ragini Rajput
22 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
came up complaining against Ajay Kumar Sareen for
registration of FIR against him. The complaint reads as below:
“To
The Senior Superintendent of Police
Jammu.
In the matter of: Application for registration of FIR.
Respected Sir,
The application (complainant) most respectfully
submits as under:
1. That the complainant is peace loving and law abiding
Citizen of India and permanent resident of UT of J&K and
besides that she is a Govt. employee serving as teacher in
Govt. Central Basic Hr. Sec. School, Purani Mandi, Jammu.
2. That accused Ajay Kumar Sareen is known to brother of
complainant being his class mate.
3. That for the last few months said accused person is
calling/harassing the complainant after which complainant
blocked her number and after this, said accused person
started following the complainant and on 15.01.2024 at
about 1:30 PM, Ajay Sareen entered the school of
complainant and directly came to complainant and told her
that he wanted to talk to the complainant as he has
feelings about the complainant upon which, complainant
conveyed that she does not want to talk to her and asked
him to not create any scene and immediately leave the
school otherwise she will complaint against him to the
school Administration and on this, he left the school but
stayed outside the school and after closing of school, he
again followed the complainant on his scooty.
4. That on 23.01.2024 at about 2:55 PM when school closed,
he entered the school premises and again came to
complainant and asked complainant to talk to her upon
which, complainant asked her to stay away from her life
and leave the school forthwith.
5. That although accused left the school but he left the school
but again stayed outside the school and when complainant
left the school on her car and reached near Maheshpura
Chowk, she saw the accused person alongwith one
unknown person and both were following the complainant
on scooty and when complainant reached near Green Land
Palace, Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu, said accused parked his
scooty in front of car of complainant and started saying
23 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024that why you not listening to me and when complainant
said that she does not want to talk or listen to him upon
which accused became infuriated and hold the complainant
from her jacket pulled her jacked and clothes which were
torn during pulling and in anger said if complainant will
not listen to him then he will kidnap her and take her to
Poonch.
6. That complainant was very frightened and she called her
brother and handed over her phone to accused and asked
him to talk to her brother upon which accused took phone
and said I am prosecution officer and I am not scared of
anyone and you can do nothing after which he cut the call.
7. That after this, accused forcefully hold the hand of
complainant and said if you don’t talk to me then I will
follow you daily upto your home and complainant was
scared and started her car and went to her home but
accused followed her to her home.
8. That the accused is influential person who is extending
threats of his position as he is prosecution officer and
because of the aforesaid illegal acts and conduct as well as
treats, complainant is very scared as such present
compliant.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that
appropriate action may please be taken against the
accused by registering FIR against the accused Ajay
Kumar Sareen under relevant provisions of law in the
interest of justice and fair play.
(Complainant)
Ragini Rajput
W/o Sh. Rohit Krishan Bhat
R/o H. No. 37 Sector 4, Lower Roop
Nagar, Near Ladakhi Girls Hostel, Jammu.”
60. If given to Ragini Rajput’s take on the situation, then
complaint addressed to SHO Police Station, Janipur Jammu
bearing a written direction by the Inspector General of Police,
Jammu to the Superintendent of Police, Jammu did not yield
any response and so is the case of the complaint addressed to
Inspector General of Police, Jammu bearing his endorsement
24 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
for the Superintendent of Police, Jammu to take appropriate
action also fetched no response leaving it only for the
complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Jammu for registration of case against Ajay Kumar
Sareen which actually set the process into motion for
registration of an FIR on 01.02.2024 against Ajay Kumar
Sareen. Thus, this seems to be a made-up narrative holding
no persuasive effect to have any taker for that and all seems
to be an afterthought to get the FIR registered in the matter.
61. Nevertheless, the complaint addressed to the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu was endorsed on
30.01.2024 for the Superintendent of Police, North but was
presented by Ragini Rajput, without bearing any sense of
rush on her part, on 31.01.2024before the Superintendent of
Police, North that is next day.
62. The Superintendent of Police, North’s endorsement to the
SHO Police Station, Janipur Jammu for taking the action is
dated 31.01.2024 but still the complaint so endorsed came to
be presented not on the same very day i.e., 31.01.2024 but
next day on 01.02.2024 by Ragini Rajput that too at 17.15
hrs., (5.15 p.m.) as if she was not pressed by any sense of
urgency with respect to matter which involved offence against
her person.
63. The reason on the part of Ragini Rajput to act at her leisure,
that instead of rushing to get her complaint registered as FIR
25 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
on 31.01.2024 itself on the basis of the endorsement of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, to present the
endorsed complaint on 01.02.2024, that too at 17.15 hrs., on
01.02.2024 is known to no one else than Ragini Rajput
leaving everybody else including this court to stay in a state
not to hazard even taking a safe guess except that she was
not led by any due sense of urgency in the matter being
already running late in her complaining about the case.
64. It is on the basis of this purported exercise at the end of
Ragini Rajput that FIR No. 0024 of 2024 got registered
against Ajay Kumar Sareen.
65. The opening line of FIR No. 0024 of 2024 is that complainant
Ragini Rajput is accompanied by her husband Rohit Krishan
Bhat to the Police Station Janipur for the purpose of
producing the complaint duly marked by Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jammu vide Order No.
Clt/DPOJ/24/PH-18 dated 30.01.2024 and duly endorsed by
Superintendent of Police City North, Jammu vide Order No.
Clt/1850/SPN dated 31.01.2024.
66. SHO, Police Station Janipur, Jammu assigned the
investigation of Ragini Rajput’s FIR No. 0024 of 2024 against
Ajay Kumar Sareen to the Investigating Officer (IO) ASI
Rounak Singh as if the SHO, Police Station Janipur Jammu
was totally uninformed and unaware of the fact that FIR No.
0020 of 2024 lodged by Ajay Kumar Sareen against Rohit
26 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Bhat related to incident of 23.01.2024 was already under
investigation with I.O ASI Mohi Din and second FIR No.
0024/2024 was also converging to involvement of same
actors on same date of alleged incident. Thus, it seems
nobody bothered to sound the SHO Police Station Janipur
that two parties are coming with counter version generating
two FIRs of same day i.e., 23/01/2024 incident involving
same set of actors.
67. Thus, from the Janipur Police Station for the same very day’s
incident of 23.01.2024 with respect to two versions relatable
to three actors, namely, Ajay Kumar Sareen, Rohit Krishan
Bhat and Ragini Rajput, two simultaneous but opposite side
looking investigations by different investigating officers got
into effect, first FIR followed by second, least bothering the
SHO Police Station Janipur to spare his consideration to the
fact that the investigation relatable to two allegedly reported
incidents in terms of FIR No. 0020 of 2024 and FIR No. 0024
of 2024, involving a serving prosecution officer/a prospective
civil judge junior division and a woman complaining of wrong
to her person at the hands of said prosecution officer, ought
to have been taken either by himself under his own
investigation or to assign the matter to one investigation
officer higher than ASI rank for the purpose of knowing the
truth and presenting final report/s thereupon so as to
27 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
present true factual police report/s before the Magistrate
concerned competent to take cognizance of the matter.
68. In the name of investigation of FIR No. 0024 of 2024 dated
01.02.2024 so registered by Ragini Rajput, I.O ASI Rounak
Singh of the Police Station, Janipur, for the reasons which
defy understanding given at the common sense level, did not
at the first instance examine Ragini Rajput, as being the
complainant, in terms of a statement under section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the date of registration
of the FIR 0024 of 2024 or for that matter on the very next
day/s.
69. In fact, as per the Case Diaries with respect to investigation of
FIR No. 0024 of 2024, I.O ASI Rounak Singh, on 01.02.2024
at 16.15 hrs., (6.15 p.m) had proceeded for preparation of site
map and in that connection telephonically called Ragini
Rajput and Rohit Krishan Bhat to arrive at the site of alleged
occurrence referred in FIR No. 0024 of 2024.
70. On the said date i.e., 01.02.2024 after purported preparation
of site map, instead of Ragini Rajput it is her husband Rohit
Krishan Bhat whose statement came to be recorded under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as if
instead of Ragini Rajput it is Rohit Krishan Bhat who was the
complainant before I.O ASI Rounak Singh.
71. Same very Rohit Krishan Bhat, who had, at the very first
instance, approached the court of learned Additional Sessions
28 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Judge, Jammu with an application seeking anticipatory bail
therein stating nothing with respect to any incident involving
himself, his wife Ragini Rajput and Ajay Kumar Sareen in any
context whatsoever, came forward divulging in his statement
under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
that on 23.01.2024 at about 2.45 p.m he got a phone call
from his wife Ragini Rajput complaining that Ajay Kumar
Sareen had bothered her on two or three times before by
coming to her school and that on the date of incident also
Ajay Kumar Sareen had come to the school but was told by
his wife-Rajini Rajput in strong words not to come to her in
the school further stating that his wife left the school in her
car which was chased by Ajay Kumar Sareen and upon
reaching Muthi Chowk, Ajay Kumar Sareen riding on scooty
stopped his wife’s car and started indulging in harassing and
intimidating her when his wife Ragini Rajput alighted from
her car and Ajay Kumar Sareen got hold of her laying his
hand on her chest whereafter Rohit Krishan Bhat went in
search of Ajay Kumar Sareen to find him near his house i.e.,
of Rohit Krishan Bhat when he (Rohit Krishan Bhat) got in
verbal exchange with Ajay Kumar Sareen asking him the
reason of chasing his wife but Ajay Kumar Sareen ran away
from the spot.
72. An alleged incident of such a serious nature having taking
place on 23.01.2024 even as per the version of Ragini Rajput
29 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
and her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat was not reported by
both of them on 24.01.2024 is not readily convincing to
reason when both of them had visited the Police Station,
Janipur for sufficient span of stay in connection with making
arrest by surrender in connection with FIR No. 0020/2024
submitting personal as well as surety bond, making no
whisper of an incident of any nature whatsoever having taken
place in the bail application filed on 24.01.2024 before
Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and then in no manner
acting till complaining 27.01.2024 when four complaints,
identically textured and contextured, came forward addressed
to the Inspector General of Police Jammu, Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP) Jammu, SHO Janipur Jammu
and the Director General, Women and Child Development.
73. In her said four complaints, Ragini Rajput came making no
whisper of the fact that her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat had
come at the site where she was intercepted by Ajay Kumar
Sareen and that she had narrated the incident to her
husband Rohit Krishan Bhat who had gone looking out for
Ajay Kumar Sareenand found him at the place as stated by
her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat in his statement under
section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made on
01.01.2024.
74. The preparation of site map alleged to have been done on
01.02.2024 purportedly on the identification of Ragini Rajput
30 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
and her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat carries no signature of
the said two persons as attesting witnesses to lend credence
to the making of the site map on the identification of the said
two persons.
75. The reason for not examining Ragini Rajput, the complainant
in FIR No. 0024 of 2024 as recorded by I.O ASI Rounak Singh
in the Case Diary of 01.02.2024, is that she opted to make a
statement only before a Magistrate and not before the said
I.O.
76. This purported conduct on behalf of Ragini Rajput as
recorded in the Case Diary is again very odd and abnormal
given the fact that she had no reason/basis to avoid stating
her complaint before I.O ASI Rounak Singh who had already
set himself on the purported investigation of the case and by
record had even identified the site of occurrence for preparing
site map.
77. It seems that it is an afterthought on the part of the I.O ASI
Rounak Singh to justify non-examination of Ragini Rajput on
01.02.2024 as after having examined Rohit Krishan Bhat, the
husband, for the reasons best known only to Rohit Krishan
Bhat, Ragini Rajput and to said I.O ASI Rounak Singh
statement of Ragini Rajput somehow was to be shown
deferred on some pretext. Thus, even Case Diary of
01.02.2024 seems to be antedated.
31 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
78. On 02.02.2024 onwards till 09.02.2024 there was no
investigation whatsoever conducted by I.O ASI Rounak Singh
in the case as is borne out from the Case Diary file
maintained with respect to FIR No. 0024 of 2024.
79. On 04.02.2024, the requisite medical opinion was also sought
with respect to nature of injury allegedly inflicted upon the
person of Ajay Kumar Sareen which was reported to be simple
in nature caused by a blunt object.
80. As referred hereinbefore that Ajay Kumar Sareen also opted to
apply for anticipatory bail before the court of learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu on 25.01.2024 which came
to be granted in terms of an order dated 25.01.2024,Ajay
Kumar Sareen came to file a supplementary application
before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu
on 09.02.2024 with a pretext that as in the order dated
25.01.2024 it was a condition put that anticipatory bail was
not to operate if involved in any offence carrying punishment
in excess of seven years or offence against woman but the FIR
No. 0024 of 2024 with the Police Station Janipur stands
registered against him for offences under sections 354/354-
B/354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as a counter blast to
his FIR No. 20 of 2024 as such the interim bail cover needs to
be extended to the FIR No. 0024 of 2024.
81. The court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu, in
terms of an order dated 09.02.2024, came to extend the
32 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
anticipatory bail in favour of Ajay Kumar Sareen with respect
to FIR No. 0024 of 2024 of the Police Station Janipur as well.
82. Despite having earned an order dated 09.02.2024 granting
anticipatory bail with respect to his impending arrest under
FIR No. 0024 of 2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen did not volunteer
his participation in the investigation as is born out from the
Case Diary dated 10.02.2024.
83. In fact, it is through his father Sanjeev Kumar Sareen that
Ajay Kumar Sareen submitted a bail order dated 09.02.2024
and, therefore, kept himself away from participation in the
investigation of FIR No. 0024 of 2024 for the reasons best
known to him.
84. The fact about submission of the bail order dated 09.02.2024
passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu
granting anticipatory bail in favour of Ajay Kumar Sareen is
duly reflected in Case Diary dated 10.02.2024 which bears
clear reference that Ajay Kumar Sareen has not so far
appeared or attended the investigation.
85. On the other hand, the same very I.O ASI Rounak Singh with
respect to the FIR No. 0024 of 2024 mentions Ajay Kumar
Sareen to have been arrested on 10.02.2024 at 00.00 hrs.,
(date and time of arrest) by reference to Arrest/Court
Surrender Memo in which the witnesses to arrest of Ajay
Kumar Sareen are referred to be Ragini Rajput, Rohit Krishan
Bhat and I.O ASI Rounak Singh.
33 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
86. This Arrest/Court Surrender Memo of Ajay Kumar Sareen
showing date of arrest to be 10.02.2024 is prepared on
08.05.2024 for the reasons best known to I.O ASI Rounak
Singh whereas the fact is that on 10.02.2024, in terms of his
own Case Diary entry, arrest of Ajay Kumar Sareen was yet to
take effect and the anticipatory bail order dated 09.02.2024
was produced by Sanjeev Kumar Sareen, the father of Ajay
Kumar Sareen so wherefrom arrest of Ajay Kumar Sareen
came to be reflected to be on 10.02.2024 is intriguing which
this Court is not able to figure out except to say that the
preparation of the record was being ante-dated and was not
contemporary.
87. The aforesaid observation of this Court is coming forth from
the fact that on 28.02.2024 SHO Police Station, Janipur was
addressing a notice under section 41-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to Ajay Kumar Sareen calling upon
him to present himself before the Police Station, Janipur in
connection with questioning for investigation under FIR No.
0024 of 2024.
88. While I.O ASI Rounak Singh prepared an Arrest Memo/Court
Surrender Memo with respect to Ajay Kumar Sareen on
08.05.2024 but before that Deputy Superintendent of Police,
SDPO, City West Jammu, vide his order No. 2598-
601/SDCW dated 29.02.2024, had come to shift the
investigation of the case from ASI Rounak Singh to SHO
34 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Police Station Janipur Jammu for further investigation so
wherefrom arrest memo/court surrender memo dated
08.05.2024 was prepared by ASI Rounak Singh is best known
only either to ASI Rounak Singh or for that matter to the SHO
Police Station, Janipur.
89. The reason for the transfer of the investigation to SHO Police
Station Janipur with respect to FIR No. 0024 of 2024 is not
revealed or forthcoming from the above-mentioned order of
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SDPO, City West
Jammu but the fact remains that SHO Police Station Janipur
at his own end was having no track of things taking place in
the context of quality content of investigation taking place
with respect to FIR No. 0024 of 2024 and having taken place
with respect to FIR No. 0020 of 2024 with final police report
(challan) also presented.
90. However, it is worth observation that the transfer of the
investigation of the FIR No. 0024 of 2024 came to take place
after the Police Report (Challan) No. 10 of 2024 dated
25.02.2024 under Sections 341/323 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 with respect to the FIR No. 0020 of 2024 against
Rohit Krishan Bhat had come to be presented on 26.02.2024
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jammu.
91. The Police Station Janipur or for that matter Deputy
Superintendent of Police, SDPO, City West Jammu cannot be
heard to plead ignorance of the fact that the Police Station,
35 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Janipur was unaware of the common connection of FIR No.
0020 of 2024 viz-à-viz FIR No. 0024 of 2024 and the
commonality of characters involved therein.
92. In the meanwhile, on the purported basis sequence of facts
and circumstances reported, related and so to say
investigated with respect to FIR No. 20 of 2024, the I.O ASI
Mohi Din came forward with preparation of a Final Police
Report (Challan) No. 10/2024 dated 25.02.2024 for alleged
commission of offences under sections 341/323 of the Indian
Penal Code against Rohit Krishan Bhat S/o Ram Krishan
Bhat R/o H. No. 37 Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu. Accused
Rohit Krishan Bhat by his occupation is said to be Junior
Engineer in the Public Works (R&B) Department.
93. With respect to said FIR No. 0020/2024, the Final Police
Report (Challan) No. 10 of 2024 dated 25.02.2024 under
sections 341/323 Indian Penal Code came to be presented
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 26.02.2024
wherefrom it came to be transferred to the Judicial Magistrate
1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu.
94. In the Final Police Report (Challan) No. 10 of 2024 against
Rohit Krishan Bhat, the husband of Ragini Rajput, the
Investigating Officer ASI Mohi Din did not spell as to for what
purpose the parents of Ajay Kumar Sareen came to be cited
by him as a prosecution witnesses when they had, by no
stretch of imagination, anything to state with respect to the
36 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
incident of alleged assault by Rohit Krishan Bhat upon and
against Ajay Kumar Sareen allegedly taking place on
23.01.2024 thereby meaning that the investigation was done
just for the name sake so as to come up with a Final Police
Report booking Rohit Krishan Bhat without any proper
evidentiary basis.
95. At the presentation of said final police report (challan), the
accused Rohit Krishan Bhat was present in person before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff)
Jammu wherein he came to submit fresh bail bond and
surety bond in terms of proceedings of 26.02.2024 and the
case got posted for further proceedings on 06.05.2024.
96. On the other hand in a concomitant development, on
25.02.2024, Ragini Rajput came to make a complaint to the
SHO Police Station, Janipur against Sanjeev Sareen and
Sudha Sareen, the parents of Ajay Kumar Sareen stating
therein that by reference to registration of the FIR No. 0024 of
2024 by her against Ajay Kumar Sareen his parents, namely,
Sanjeev Kumar Sareen and Sudha Sareen are threatening,
harassing, pressurizing, criminally intimidating and defaming
her as well as her family members in order to get the
registered FIR withdrawn. In this complaint, Ragini Rajput
further stated that the parents of Ajay Kumar Sareen have
even tried to pressurize her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat from
his Head of the Department (R&B).
37 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
97. This complaint of Ragini Rajput, in terms of its context,
exposes the fact that even Ragini Rajput was having personal
knowledge about the parental family of Ajay Kumar Sareen
knowing about his parents by their names and they are
knowing about her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat in terms of
his employment. However, Ragini Rajput did not come
forward with further disclosure that despite her said
complaint made to SHO Police Station, Janipur against the
parents of Ajay Kumar Sareen what came to be the outcome
of the said complaint or the complaint was made just for the
sake of record making to be exploited for reference’s sake.
98. On the other hand, Ajay Kumar Sareen has opted not to
register any objection or reservation with respect to the
nature and manner of the investigation carried out by I.O ASI
Mohi Din with respect to the FIR No. 0020 of 2024 meaning
thereby Ajay Kumar Sareen found himself contented just by
the fact that Rohit Krishan Bhat has come to be booked for
commission of offence under sections 341/323 Indian Penal
Code.
99. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is punishment for
wrongful restraint and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code
is punishment for voluntary causing hurt thereby ruling out
any grievous hurt inflicted on the person of Ajay Kumar
Sareen.
38 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
100. In the meanwhile, with respect to the pending investigation of
FIR No. 0024 of 2024 against Ajay Kumar Sareen as observed
earlier that so-called investigation came to be initiated on
01.02.2024 i.e. on the day of registration of the FIR when
preparation of a site plan and statement of Rohit Krishan
Bhat under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
came to be recorded, then taken up on 10.02.2024 when bail
order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the court of learned
Sessions Judge, Jammu came to be presented by Sanjeev
Kumar Sareen, the father of Ajay Kumar Sareen in the Police
Station Janipur and thereafter the investigation was again
resumed on 18.02.2024 on which date I.O ASI Rounak Singh
came to diarize that for the purpose of getting Ragini Rajput,
the complainant, to come forward for sake of recording her
statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 she cited her bad health and sought time for
coming forward for making statement upon her recovery
meaning thereby the complainant Ragini Rajput, at her end,
was least interested to put up her version at the earliest
before I.O ASI Rounak Singh in the backdrop of the fact her
FIR had come to be registered on 01.02.2024 after a gap of
eight days from the date of alleged incident of 23.01.2024.
101. Further I.O ASI Rounak Singh has registered a fact in the
Case Diary of 18.02.2024 that arrest of Ajay Kumar Sareen in
the FIR No. 0024 of 2024 is still to be carried out which
39 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
recital is contrary to the record of Arrest/Court Surrender
Memo in which the arrest of Ajay Kumar Sareen is shown to
have taken place on 10.02.2024 thereby adding puzzle to the
nature of investigation so carried out by the Police Station
Janipur.
102. On the other hand, without presenting himself for
investigation with respect to FIR No. 0024 of 2024, Ajay
Kumar Sareen got absolute anticipatory bail from the court of
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in terms of an
order dated 02.03.2024 and thereupon furnished personal
bond in the Court so as to attend the investigation.
103. This fact of grant of bail, in terms of the order dated
02.03.2024, is found mentioned in the Final Police Report
which later on came to be presented with respect to the FIR
No. 0024 of 2024 against Ajay Kumar Sareen.
104. While on one hand, Ajay Kumar Sareen was engaged in
securing anticipatory bail in his favour with respect to the FIR
No. 0024 of 2024, on the other hand he was addressing a
complaint against Ragini Rajput to her Higher Official
Authorities with respect to which the Director School
Education, Jammu, vide his letter No.
DSEJ/MW/G/2024/366/5124-26 dated 02.03.2024, came to
forward the said complaint of Ajay Kumar Sareen to the Chief
Education Officer, Jammu against Ragini Rajput and which
complaint came to be forwarded by the Chief Education
40 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Officer, Jammu vide his communication No.
CEO/MW/31076-77 dated 27.03.2024, to the Principal,
Government Central Basic Higher Secondary School, Purani
Mandi, Jammu for enquiry and report. Copy of the complaint
was filed by Ajay Kumar Sareen against Ragini Rajput
accompanied the said communications.
105. In this complaint, the tone and tenor of the allegations would
show that Ajay Kumar Sareen was having more than a
passing acquaintance with Ragini Rajput to the extent of
purported information about her alleged acts of omission and
commission as a Teacher in the School and this complaint
even bears reference to the private life of Ragini Rajput to the
extent of her desire to divorce her husband Rohit Krishan
Bhat and in turn marry Ajay Kumar Sareen.
106. In this complaint, Ajay Kumar Sareen is also exhibiting his
full knowledge of the fact about Rohit Krishan Bhat being
resident of House No. 37 Sector No. 4 Lower Roop Nagar,
Jammu which otherwise was kept held back by him at the
time of registration of his FIR No. 0020 of 2024 with the
Police Station, Janipur Jammu and also in his statement
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
107. Thus, this complaint exposes Ajay Kumar Sareen in a bad
light to the extent that even he had taken liberty of being
miser in reporting true facts at the appropriate point of time
when the same ought to have been disclosed by him at the
41 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
very first given occasion and that was at the time of
registration of his FIR No. 0020 of 2024.
108. In this complaint, Ajay Kumar Sareen came to give a different
version with respect to the alleged incident which led to his
purported injury and registration of the FIR No. 0020 of 2024
by him.
109. For the facility of reference, the relevant para 12 of the said
complaint is reproduced here under: –
“That after talking to her, the complainant was on his
way to her maternal aunt’s home which is situated at
Chinore, Roop Nagar, Jammu where the said teacher
stopped the way of complainant and asked him to talk
to his brother. When the complainant refused to do so,
she told the location of the complainant to her husband
and brother over call and 2 minutes later, her husband
attacked the complainant with a sharp edged weapon on
his head with intention to kill him. That an FIR was
lodged against his husband for the said incident in
Janipur Police Station.”
110. After a gap of ten days, investigation was again resumed to be
on 29.02.2024 by which date Ragini Rajput, the complainant,
had not come forward to make any statement whatsoever in
support of her allegations made in the FIR No. 0024 of 2024
but still from nowhere I.O ASI Rounak Singh has referred
himself to the matter of fetching call details from SDPO, City
West, Jammu but by reference to the call details of which
mobile numbers the I.O ASI Rounak Singh was seeking call
details is known only to I.O ASI Rounak Singh when Ragini
42 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Rajput, the complainant, was yet to make her statement to
come forward with disclosure of any phone calls having taken
place between her and Ajay Kumar Sareen or for that matter
her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat.
111. It is at this point of time of investigation obtaining on
29.02.2024 that the transfer of the investigation of FIR No.
0024 of 2024 came to take place from I.O ASI Rounak Singh
to SHO Police Station Janipur.
112. It is only on 01.03.2024 that Ragini Rajput, the complainant,
finally came forward for making her statement under section
164 Code of Criminal Procedure after almost one month of
lodging her FIR No. 0024 of 2024 which adds an element of
discredit to her conduct as a complainant.
113. In her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973recorded before the Forest Magistrate
(1stAdditional Munsiff), Jammu, Ragini Rajput came to make
statement to the effect that Ajay Kumar Sareen was friend of
her brother Anmol Slathia and as such used to frequent their
house stating further that Ajay Kumar Sareen for the last four
and five months had been chasing/annoying her (Ragini
Rajput) urging her to speak to him but after getting fed up by
the said overtures and gestures of Ajay Kumar Sareen came
to block mobile phone of Ajay Kumar Sareen in September,
2023 but thereafter, Ajay Kumar Sareen started visiting the
43 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Central Basic Higher Secondary School, Purani Mandi,
Jammu where she is posted.
114. Ragini Rajput in her said statement has gone further to the
extent of saying that Ajay Kumar Sareen repeatedly coaxed
her to interact with him only to be told by her that she had no
feeling for him (Ajay Kumar Sareen) even if he was having any
feelings towards her.
115. With this background of purported interaction and interest of
Ajay Kumar Sareen viz-à-viz Ragini Rajput, she came forward
to narrate about the alleged incident of 23.01.2024 stating
that at 2.55 p.m. Ajay Kumar Sareen had come to her school
and stood near her vehicle to say that she (Ragini Rajput)
shall speak to him but she told him to remove himself from
her side otherwise school guards would be called which made
Ajay Kumar Sareen to slip away from the scene but as she
was putting a phone call to her brother, Ajay Kumar Sareen
in fear of that went away from the place but on her way she
observed that Ajay Kumar Sareen was riding on a Scooty
following her which was being driven by somebody else and
when she (Ragini Rajput) reached Green Land Palace, Lower
Roop Nagar, JammuAjay Kumar Sareen got his Scooty in
front of her car and alighted from the Scooty to come to her
when she rolled down the side window of her car and told
Ajay Kumar Sareento go away and not to create any scene.
44 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
116. Ragini Rajput, in her statement, has stated that at that point
of time she made a phone call to her brother who spoke to
Ajay Kumar Sareen telling him to go away otherwise he
(Ragini Rajput’s brother) would come himself, at which point
of time, Ajay Kumar Sareen snatched the mobile phone from
the hands of Ragini Rajput, pulled down her wearing apparels
as she was wearing a sweater and pulled down the said
sweater from her chest side which resulted in plucking of her
sweater’s button. As per her statement, Ragini Rajput had
kept her mobile phone on speaker mode which enabled her
brother to overhear the ongoing conversation and commotion
and she was left frightened and rolled up the side window of
her car and drove away from the place of occurrence.
117. With this alleged incident having taken place, Ragini Rajput,
in her statement, has stated that next day she had gone to
the Police Station to lodge a complaint but the same was
registered in the Police Station Janipur. As per further
statement of Ragini Rajput ever since her complaint made to
the Police Station Janipur, Ajay Kumar Sareen and his family
have been visiting her office to float false narratives about her
so as to defame her and also going to the extent of holding
out threats to her and her in laws. Ragini Rajput has referred
in her statement that Ajay Kumar Sareen was daring to do so
on the basis of his claim that he is a Prosecuting Officer.
45 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
118. In her said version with respect to the alleged incident of
23.01.2024, Ragini Rajput has nowhere stated or mentioned
about presence of her husband Rohit Krishan Bhat at the
time of incident or even thereafter being conveyed about the
happening of alleged incident whereas Rohit Krishan Bhat
came forward with a different version about which reference
has been made hereinbefore.
119. Thereafter, in the name of investigation, the statements of
Kanta Pathania- mother of Ragini Rajput came to be recorded
on 23.03.2024 followed by statements of Vipan Mehta, Gargi
Khullar, Sharan Pal Singh, Rajesh Mehta, Manav Gupta,
Anmol Slathia, Pintoo Singh and Akshay Kumar, the person
who was driving the Scooty on which Ajay Kumar Sareen was
riding and who had earlier made a statement as a witness
under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the
investigation of an FIR No. 0020/2024 against Rohit Krishan
Bhat.
120. Thus, one person, i.e. Rakesh Kumar came to be examined by
the same Police Station Janipur, through its different
Investigating Officers, to come up with two opposing versions
about the alleged incident taking place on 23.01.2024 with
confirmed common fact being Rakesh Kumar, the scooty
driver on which Ajay Kumar Sareen was riding. Not only this,
even the statement of Ragini Rajput’s mother-Kanta Pathania
and her brother-Anmol Slathia, were recorded twice.
46 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
121. Ragini Rajput came forward with another statement made on
05.05.2024 to the Investigating Officer whereby she came to
make reference about CCTV footage having been captured
with respect to an alleged incident on 23.01.2024.
122. On the very next day 05.03.2024 following the recording of
statement of Ragini Rajput under section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 04.03.2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen
came forward with a complaint addressed to Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu seeking a fair and
professional investigation with respect to FIR No. 0020 of
2024 wherein he came to divulge that Rohit Bhat was
previously known to him and that Ragini Rajput is his wife
meaning thereby Ajay Kumar Sareen all along even before the
alleged incident of 23.01.2024 in which he is alleged to have
been assaulted by Rohit Bhat was knowing about the true
profile of Rohit Bhat and Ragini Rajput being his wife but still
at the time of making a complaint resulting in registration of
an FIR No. 0020 of 2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen made not even
a whisper of remote reference to this important aspect for the
notice of the Investigating Officer concerned for the purpose
of investigation into the matter or examining the veracity put
forth by him in the form of a complaint.
123. Ajay Kumar Sareen filed an application dated 09.03.2024
addressed to SDPO, City West, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu seeking
fair, impartial and professional investigation of FIR No. 0020
47 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
of 2024 by the Police Station Janipur. Thus, simultaneously
engaging Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu with
a similar request made vide the application dated 05.03.2024
and also SDPO, City West, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu. Both
applications carried the same text and context without any
iota of change. In these two applications, Ajay Kumar Sareen
first time came to introduce himself as a Public Prosecutor
being well versed with law and stating the alleged incident of
23.01.2024 being attacked by Rohit Krishan Bhat being
known to him and stating that Rohit Krishan Bhat attempted
to kill him (Ajay Kumar Sareen) by attacking him on his head
with a weapon which led to the infliction of an injury on his
head treated with three stitches and resulting in registration
of an FIR No. 0020 of 2024. In these two applications, Ajay
Kumar Sareen came to introduce Ragini Rajput to be wife of
Rohit Krishan Bhat registering a counter FIR No. 0024 of
2024 under sections 354/354-B/354-D Indian Penal Code
which was a false, frivolous and vexatious FIR and that the
said FIR was not being properly investigated by the Police by
not seeing CCTV camera footage on the turn of lower Roop
Nagar as well as in the house of Ragini Rajput so as to fetch
real truth about the incident. Thus, Ajay Kumar Sareen
indulged in fault finding of investigation of FIR no. 0024 of
2024.
48 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
124. On the other hand, not legging behind Ajay Kumar Sareen in
terms of brinkmanship and maneuverability, Ragini Rajput,
at her end, came forward with an application made on
11.03.2024 to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jammu for the sake of seeking detailed status report with
regard to an investigation of an FIR No. 0024 of 2024 from
the Police Station Janipur, Jammu alleging therein that the
Police Station Janipur was not investigating the matter even
after a passage of long time despite repeated requests.
Obviously, the tone and tenor of this application was not for
the purpose of seeking status report but something else and
that was to scandalize the situation.
125. On 15.03.2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen came forward with
another application addressed to SDPO, City West, Bakshi
Nagar, Jammu which came to be referred to SHO, Police
Station Janipur with respect to an investigation of FIR No.
0024 of 2024.
126. On 26.03.2024 Ajay Kumar Sareen came forward with
another application dated 26.03.2024 addressed to DIG
Samba Kathua Range on the subject of false, frivolous and
vexatious FIR No. 0024 of 2024 against him registered by the
Police Station Janipur. In this complaint, Ajay Kumar Sareen
repeated the version as given in his earlier applications to
Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and SDPO,
City West, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu without disclosing anything
49 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
in his application that he had already addressed applications
on the identical lines to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Jammu and SDPO, City West, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
127. Ajay Kumar Sareen solicited the indulgence of DIG Samba
Kathua Range to close the FIR No. 0024 of 2024 and to take
action against Rohit Bhat and his wife Ragini Rajput.
128. On 27.03.2024 Rohit Krishan Bhat came forward with
institution of one of the three petitions before this Court i.e.,
CRM(M) No. 206 of 2024 for quashment of Final Police
Report/Challan No. 10 of 2024 dated 25.02.2024 filed on
26.02.2024 on the ground as spelled out in the petition.
129. On the other hand, Ajay Kumar Sareen came forward with the
institution of a petition-CRM(M) No. 312/2024 seeking
quashment of an FIR No. 0024 of 2024 which came to be
dismissed by virtue of an order dated 06.05.2024. In this
petition CRM(M) No. 312/2024, Ajay Kumar Sareen
impleaded Ragini Rajput as respondent No. 3 and stating in
this petition about the fact of Rohit Bhat being husband of
Ragini Rajput thereby confirming the fact that at the time of
registration of FIR No. 0020 of 2024 with Police Station
Janipur, Ajay Kumar Sareen had not come out with a clean
disclosure of facts concerning Rohit Bhat and the alleged
angle involved in alleged assault upon him.
130. On the basis of the purported investigation viz FIR No. 0024
of 2024, the Police Station Janipur, through its SHO, came
50 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
forward with preparation of a Final Police Report (Challan)
No. 38 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 against Ajay Kumar Sareen.
131. Police Station Janipur came forward submitting the final
Police Report (Challan) No. 38 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu against Ajay
Kumar Sareen charging him of an alleged commission of
offences under sections 354 of assault or criminal force to
woman with intent to outrage her modesty/354 of assault or
use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe /354-D
of stalking and 341 of wrongful restraint of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 which came to be transferred for trial to the
Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. The Final Police Report
(Challan) No. 38 of 2024 was presented on 30.05.2024.
132. While the afore-detailed facts and circumstances relate to
CRM(M) No. 206 of 2024 and CRM(M) No. 466 of 2024, but
with respect to CRM(M) No. 159 of 2024 by reference to same
very date of 23.01.2024, Rekha Rani, the mother of Ajay
Kumar Sareen came to register on 06.03.2024 an FIR No.
0020/2024 with Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu
against Anmol Slathia, the brother of Ragini Slathia and his
friend Manav Gupta for alleged commission of offences under
section 354/382/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 stating
therein that on 23.01.2024 at 2 p.m said two named accused
persons entered in her shop, demanding Rs. 5,000/-,
threatening to kill her and her son and forcibility took away
51 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Rs. 3,000/- from the cash box by forcibly scuffling with her
and inappropriately touching her body parts by outraging her
modesty.
133. The registration of this FIR No. 0020/2024 with the Police
Station Pacca Danga, Jammu came to take place with
reference to the alleged incident of 23.01.2024 on 06.03.2024
when Rekha Rani Sareen, the mother of Ajay Kumar Sareen
submitted a written application with the Police Post Parade
falling under the Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu. This
FIR is still in a state of investigation but has been challenged
by the accused named therein, namely, Anmol Slathia and
Manav Gupta in CRM(M) No. 159/2024, being the first to be
filed out of the three petitions, other two being CRM(M) No.
206 of 2024 and CRM(M) No. 466 of 2024.
134. A shoddy and compromised investigation of and in a criminal
case is wedded from inception to checkmates at every stage of
trial and fated to be failure be it at its very inception or at the
end. Investigation of/in a criminal case is not meant to be
customized as per noted script of an FIR so as to compulsively
come up with a final police report following and fitting the FIR
script because that scenario would only mean by cutting and
editing of facts, a final police report under section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure gets generated by an Investigating
Officer without probing all the facts in terms of all its leads
and linkages be those, stated or silent ones.
52 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
135. Now in the aforesaid backdrop of facts and circumstances, the
learned counsel for Ajay Kumar Sareen, the petitioner in
CRM(M) No. 466/2024, the learned counsel for the respondent
Ragini Rajpur in CRM(M) No. 466/2024, the learned counsel
for Rohit Krishan Bhat, the petitioner in CRM(M) No.
206/2024, the learned counsel for Ajay Kumar Sareen, the
respondent in CRM(M) No. 206/2024 and the learned counsel
for Anmol Slathia and Manik Gupta, the petitioners in CRM(M)
No. 159/2024 have all come up with their respective arsenal of
arguments and counter arguments to emboss their respective
case and cancel other’s case in terms of accusation narrative,
bearing self-serving assurance and approbation, as if his or
her side version is truth telling and other side’s version framed
falsely as an afterthought and in the process exposing an
inherent contrivance and contradiction found out without
laboring any forensic exertion.
136. Both sides came with factual fragilities and frivolities self-
exposing each other’s case narrative literally arguing as if one
side’s falsehood is more plausible and presentable than others.
Facts are in contradictions and contractions, presented in the
name of an investigation by the respective investigating officers
of the same police station i.e. Police Station Janipur, not
supervised by SHO Police Station before approving submission
of the two police reports forming subject matter of challenge
under CRM(M) No. 206/2024 &CRM(M) No. 466/2024
53 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
137. This Court is consciously refraining from referring to the
respective submissions of the learned counsel for both sides
i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondents in CRM(M) No.
206/2024 &CRM(M) No. 466/2024 for the reason that the
submissions are not finding any foundational connect with the
so called investigation of the two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 20/2024 &
FIR No. 24/2024. In fact, this Court has a very simple test to
apply and expose the both sides in lacking bonafide in
registration of a case against each other and the said test is if
the final challans vis-à-vis FIR No. 20/2024 & FIR No.
24/2024 under challenge in CRM(M) No. 206/2024 & CRM(M)
No. 466/2024 are let to undergo and bear respective trial by
dismissing the two petitions i.e. CRM(M) No. 206/2024 &
CRM(M) No. 466/2024, then both the police reports are going
to cancel each other fact-wise because the factual narrative in
both the police reports are found in disjunctive and not in
conjunctive connection with each other and both the parties
would be left to exploit their respective machination against
each other in the course of trial making the trials in the two
cases a sheer mockery.
138. Both sides are coming with self-serving claims of their case
being true and the counter case untrue. If both challans are
left to bear their respective trial as it is then an inevitable
outcome, which is guaranteed to come sooner than later, is the
failure of the said two police reports/challans thereby leaving
54 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
the criminal administration of justice a matter of mocking.
This is not but for criminal administration of justice is aimed
and meant for.
139. Police, as being an investigating authority, cannot be left to
generate investigative report amounting to final police report
which has no factual footing to prima facie show that the
accusation and the evidence have come together in the police
report on the basis of the investigation conducted so as to put
up an accused for a trial of offence before the criminal court of
law.
140. When this Court examines the aforesaid scenario in its totality
then this Court is inclined to quash and hereby quashes the
final police reports No. 38/2024 and 10/2024 of the Police
Station Janipur. Given the fact the both the parties have come
accusing each other in the context of FIR No. 0020/2024 and
FIR No. 0024/2024 as such both the accuser and the accused
have their respective self-reputation at the stake and as such
the situation warrants that an independent unbiased
investigation must happen with respect to the said two FIRs so
as to bring out the real truth and the real culprit to stand trial,
therefore, this Court is constrained to direct fresh investigation
of the said two FIRs i.e., FIR No. 0020/2024 and FIR No.
0024/2024.
141. This Court is drawing support from the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “State of
55 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors“, 2011
AIR (SC) 2962 as it also involved interplay of investigation with
version and counter-version and the case was reported as
‘Moga Sex Scandal’ in which the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana took suo moto cognizance from a news item and
despite the reluctance of the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) to take over the investigation entrusted investigation by
passing an order to said effect and the matter thus, was taken
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it was argued
that once a challan is filed and charges are framed, the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana could not direct re-investigation
by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
142. Taking stock of the position of law on the point, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India came to formulate a question as to
whether in the facts and circumstances the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana could pass an order for investigation by
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to secure the ends of
justice. Upholding the direction of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana for investigation by Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) as justified, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in para 18 came forward with the following observations:
“18. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and
Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a
Constitution Bench of this Court, while holding that no
Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of
56 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
has cautioned that the extra-ordinary powers of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must
be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to provide
credibility and confidence in investigation or where the
incident may have national or international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental
rights. This caution equally applies to the cases where
the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for
securing the ends of justice. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, however, the High Court
has held that the state local police was unable to carry
out investigation into the cases and for securing the
ends of justice the investigation has to be handed over
to the CBI. In other words, this was one of those extra-
ordinary cases where the direction of the High Court for
investigation by the CBI was justified.
143. Fresh investigation of the said two FIRs cannot be now left at
the disposal of the Police Station, Janipur or for that matter of
the investigating officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Police.
This Court upon due consideration assigns the investigation of
the said two FIRs to the Central Bureau of Investigation,
Jammu and, therefore, directs the Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Central Bureau of Investigation, Jammu to
undertake the investigation of the said two FIRs by deputing a
competent investigating officer to carry out the investigation to
logical end at the earliest preferably within a period of ninety
(90) days from the date of passing of this judgment.
57 CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024 & 206/2024
144. Insofar as FIR No. 0020/2024 is concerned, since the
investigation is to be done by the Police Station, Pacca Danga,
Jammu as such, the said FIR is to bear the investigation by
the said Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu and the same to
be carried out and complied within a period of two months. In
case the investigation is not conducted within the two months
period as hereby given then the SHO, Police Station, Pacca
Danga, Jammu to seek extension of time from this Court by
laying a motion showing reasons for seeking extension.
145. Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of along with connected
applications.
146. A copy of this judgment be sent to Special Mobile Magistrate
(Electricity), Jammu seized of trial with respect to final police
report No. 38 of 2024 and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3rd
Additional Munsiff), Jammu seized of trial with respect to final
police report No. 10 of 2024.
147. Police Station, Janipur to handover the entire record
pertaining to the aforesaid two FIRs available at its end to
Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), CBI, Jammu.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
26.12.2024
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2024.12.26 18:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document