Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Brij Bhushan Sharma vs Rifat Ara And Another on 4 August, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No.282/2024 CrlM No.704/2024
BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Aijaz Chisti, Advocate.
Vs.
RIFAT ARA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Ahra Syed, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
04.08.2025
(ORAL)
1. The instant petition filed by the petitioner herein, while invoking the
inherent power of this Court enshrined under Section 482 CrPC, is
essentially a third attempt against the criminal prosecution launched
against the petitioner herein by the respondent 1 herein for
commission of offence under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition would reveal that the
respondent 1 herein filed a complaint against the petitioner herein, on
the premise that, in the year 2012, while working in a Bank in
Rajbagh area of Srinagar, came to know about a Housing Corporate
Society, namely “J&K Cooperative Tourism and Housing
Development Corporation”, dealing with the sale of land at Bajalta
Jammu near Sidra, and being interested in purchase of 7 marlas of
said land, approached the petitioner herein along with her husband,
and after being shown the plot of land of 7 marlas at Bajalta Jammu,
the petitioner herein agreed to purchase the same and in furtherance
thereof paid an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- out of total consideration of
Rs.350,000/- in presence of her husband to the petitioner herein
against the various receipts, and also got an agreement to sell executed
thereof at Jammu on 22.02.2015, whereunder the petitioner herein had
undertaken to handover the possession of the said plot of land to her
with liberty to raise construction of a residential house thereon, and
1
that despite having paid Rs.3,15,000/- to the petitioner in advance, the
possession of said plot of land was not delivered to her and despite
being approached at the office of said corporation at Srinagar as well
at Jammu, the petitioner failed to deliver the possession of the land in
question threats were extended by petitioner to her whereupon she-the
complainant instituted the complaint after her attempt to get an FIR
registered against the petitioner before the concerned Police Station,
did not yield any result as also a legal notice served upon the
petitioner by her.
3. The Complaint (supra) upon its presentation came to be entertained by
the Court of City Judge/JMIC Srinagar (hereinafter for short ‘the
Magistrate) on 27.12.2021 and on 08.03.2022 the said court directed
the SP South, Srinagar, to conduct an inquiry in the matter while
invoking the provision of Section 202 CrPC and to file a report by or
before 20.04.2022.
4. The petitioner, herein aggrieved of the order dated 08.03.2022,
preferred in the first attempt CRM(M) No. 196/2022 before this
Court, calling in question the complaint as also order dated
08.03.2022 passed by the Magistrate, which petition, however, came
to be dismissed by this Court, holding the same to be premature, while
leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court in case an
adverse order is passed by the Magistrate against him after
considering the report of inquiry.
5. The petitioner herein thereafter in the second attempt filed CRM(M)
23/2023, and while yet again challenged the order dated 08.03.2022
passed by the Magistrate also challenged the police report dated
20.04.2022. The said petition as well came to be dismissed as being
not maintainable by this Court upon being informed by counsel for the
complainant/respondent 1 herein that after the receipt of the police
report, the Magistrate has taken cognizance in the complaint and also
issued process against the accused petitioner in terms of order dated
25.07.2022.
6. The petitioner thereafter has maintained the instant petition yet again,
seeking quashing of the police report dated 20.04.2022, besides the
2
order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 25.07.2022 and has
maintained the petition on the following grounds: –
a) That the Id. Magistrate at Srinagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint and to proceed with the same by issuance of process against the
petitioner when the land is situated at Jammu and the payments received and
agreements made and executed at Jammu and more so transaction is a civil
dispute interse the parties. The complaint on these facts being without
jurisdiction merits to be naught.
b) That the Respondent No. I being in know of all the facts viz Acquisition of the
land and the efforts made by the petitioner for delivery of an alternate site at
Jammu to which the applicant is not agreeing to, has filed the instant
complaint on false and frivolous allegations viza viz cheating and criminal
intimidation, when fact of the matter remains that because of the acquisition of
the land over which the dwelling houses were to be provided by the
Government for establishment of office of Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner
was at pains to convey to all its clients including the Respondents for an
alternate site or to receive back the money deposited to which proposition the
Respondent No. 1 is not agreeing and is hell bent to provide her the site which
stands already acquired by the government which is beyond the control of the
petitioner.
c) That the whole transaction stands completed at Jammu and the land also falls
within the Jammu region and as such the no complaint could be entertained
by a Magistrate at Srinagar. Thus Registration of company and the impugned
orders passed that too without passing fresh process after receipt of the police
report being without jurisdiction merits to be quashed.
d) That as reflected in the complaint itself by the Respondent No. 1 that she had
already approached the Police for Registration of FIR who are on job and as
such the filing of Criminal Complaint before the court is bared in law as is hit
for doctrine of Double Jeopardi and the petitioner can not be waxed twice for
the same allegations that too by a court at Srinagar having no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition when the matter pertains to Jammu Division. The
Impugned complaint as well as the orders passed in the said complaint merits
to be quashed.
e) That the police is harassing the petitioner and the other employees of the
Society day in and day out for none of their faults and is constrained to
approach this Hon’ble court through this instant petition.
f) That the process initiated by the trial court is not in accordance with the
scheme provided under Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code, and as such
proceedings initiated by the Ld. Trial Magistrate by issuance of the process
and asking the petitioner to remain present by executing an undertaking for3
remaining present each and every hearing that to without having any
jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, merits to be quashed.
g) That the petitioner has earlier filed a petition bearing CRMM No. 23/2023
whereby the Hon’ble High Court observing the non-assailment of the process
issued by the trial court was pleased to accord a liberty to file a fresh oneHeard counsel for the parries and perused the record.
7. The fundamental grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in the
petition pertains to the lack of jurisdiction by the Magistrate to
entertain a complaint and to proceed therewith on the premise that the
subject matter land is situated in Jammu, payments received in respect
of the said land inasmuch as the agreement executed thereof also
stands executed in Jammu, inasmuch as, the dispute inter-se the
parties is of civil nature and that the complaint is baseless and
unfounded.
Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code contained in
Chapter XIII would provide that every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed. The expression “ordinarily appearing in Section 177
(supra) signifies that territorial jurisdiction of the court under Section
177 has to be based upon the principles and factors that need to be
kept in mind while determining such territorial jurisdiction. The Apex
Court in case title as “Swaati Nirkhi and Ors. Vs. State (NCR of
Delhi) and Ors”., reported in 2021 (11) SCC 163, while dealing with
the provisions of Section 177 CrPC has inter-alia held that ordinarily
a place of enquiry or trial has to be by the court within whose local
jurisdiction the crime allegedly is committed or where the cause of
action has accrued while elucidating further that the cause of action
consists of a bundle of facts which give cause to a party to seek
redress in a court of law and give allegedly affecting party a right to
claim relief against the opponent and that it must include some act
done by the latter since in absence of such an act, no cause of action
would accrue or would arise.
In case titled as “Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana
and Ors“, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 92 the Apex Court while
4
dealing the question of territorial jurisdiction and distinguishing
factors in civil as well as in criminal cases summarized various
principles and inter-alia held that where an offense is committed
partly in one area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or
tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas while
providing further that where an offense consists of several acts done
in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court
having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
8. Reverting back to the case in hand perusal of the complaint and
annexures appended thereto, manifestly show the address of the
Corporation at Jammu and Srinagar as well. Although the agreement
inter se the petitioner and complainant/respondent 2 herein has been
executed at Jammu setting out terms and conditions of the sale and
purchase of plot in question, yet the execution of the said agreement
cannot be taken into consideration in isolation, excluding the
contentions of the petitioner urged in the complaint qua the official
address of the Corporation at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, inasmuch as
the receipts of the payments made and executed by the Corporation.
Therefore having regard to the aforesaid principles of law laid down
by the Apex Court in the judgments supra, it cannot by any stretch of
imagination be said and held that the Magistrates have had no
territorial jurisdiction in the matter as such, the said plea of the
petitioner is held to be grossly misconceived.
9. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner that the whole transaction inter-se
the petitioner and complainant/respondent 1 is civil in nature and
criminal prosecution was not warranted and that the complaint is
false, baseless and unfounded is concerned, the said pleas could not be
raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, in that, the petitioner
has not thrown challenge to the complaint in the instant petition and
the said plea of transaction being civil in nature and not criminal thus,
cannot be adverted to. Besides other plea of the petitioner that the
complaint is baseless and unfounded as well cannot be looked into
being factual in nature and thus not amenable to be adjudicated upon
in the instant petition in exercise of inherent power, which power
otherwise is to be exercised rarely and with circumspection .
5
10. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and is
accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court has
not made any observation or recorded any findings with regard to
guilt or innocence of the petitioner in that matter.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
04.08.2025
Ishaq
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes
6