Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Davinder Kumar vs Dcp J&K Police And Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Sr. No. 08
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM (M) No. 1123/2023
Davinder Kumar .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- None.
V/s
DCP J&K Police and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA
Mr. Abrar Ahmed Khan, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
ORDER
06.08.2025
1. Through the medium of the present petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 92/2023 lodged in Police
Station Bharderwah, District Doda, for offences punishable under Sections
307, 323, 506, 147, & 148 IPC.
2. The said FIR is challenged and sought to be quashed on the ground
that it has been registered on false and flimsy grounds with mala fide and
malicious intent by respondent No. 5. It is submitted that the registration of
the FIR amounts to misuse and abuse the process of law under the garb of
Law of Land.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a peace
loving citizen with no criminal history, and that respondent No. 5 has lodged
the FIR based on a concocted story to falsely implicate the petitioner in a
frivolous case. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit,
in response to which the FIR has been registered to pressurize him to transfer
his land to him and withdraw the said suit. The allegations made in the FIR
__________ Page 2 of 5
are stated to be absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, it
has been inferred that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner is that there is a civil dispute between the
parties regarding land, in respect of which the petitioner has filed a civil
suit. Respondent No. 5, without having any right to the land is interfering
in it, with an intent to pressurize him to withdraw the civil suit, he has
filed the FIR at the said Police Station.
5. After filing the present petition, the petitioner has remained absent
since 11.03.2024, and has not appeared till date.
6. Status report has been filed by respondent No. 3. According to the status
report, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint
lodged by respondent No. 5, Narinder Kumar, on 28.07.2023. In the
complaint, it was alleged that on the said date, while he and his wife were
cutting grass on their land, the accused persons, namely: 1. Devinder Kumar
S/o Madho Lal, 2. Arvind Kumar S/o Madho Lal, 3. Shama Devi W/o
Devinder Kumar, 4. Archana Devi W/o Arvind Kumar and 5. Veena Devi
D/o Madho Lal, all residents of Village Derka Batoli, Tehsil Bhalla, District
Doda, trespassed into the land armed with sickles (drats), sticks, and stones,
and started abusing and beating them. It was further alleged that accused
Arvind Kumar, with an intention to kill the complainant, attacked him on the
forehead and hand, while accused Devinder Kumar attacked complainant’s
wife, and on screaming, all the accused persons ran away from the spot.
7. As the allegations contained in the complaint disclosed the
commission of cognizable offences, and, therefore FIR No. 92/2023 was
registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 147 and 148 IPC. The status
__________ Page 3 of 5
report states that during the course of investigation, statements of
witnesses were recorded, and the alleged offences have been established.
It is further stated that the investigation has been completed.
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the Code of Criminal
Procedure limits or affects inherent powers of the high Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
9. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo, (2005)
13 SCC 540, has sounded a note of caution about the powers of High
Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C.,
corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their lordships enunciated
that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether
factual or legal, being of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material before the Court. While exercising
inherent jurisdiction as observed by their Lordships, it is not permissible
for the Court to act as if it was a Trial Court. It would be none of the
duties of the High Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether
the material produced are sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty.
10. It would also be proper to refer to judgment of the Supreme Court
in Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, while summarizing
the principles in the light of which inherent powers can be exercised, has
observed:
__________ Page 4 of 5
“132.The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders
as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted
and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be
exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The powers
possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and
the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles.
133. The Judicial Committee in (1) Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad and (2) Lala Jai
Ram Das v. Emperor has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old Code
gave no new powers but only provided that those which the Court already
inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till date.
134. This Court in Dr Raghubir Sharon v. The State of Bihar had an occasion
to examine the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its jurisdiction
when to be exercised. Mudholkar, J speaking for himself and Raghubar Dayal,
J after referring a series of decisions of the Privy Council and of the various
High Courts held thus:
…every High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a
State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
ends of justice…. Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed
in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court to is
powers….
135. See Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr.,
[1958] SCR 1226 and Pampapathy v. State of Mysore [1966] (Supp.) SCR
477.
136. Thus, the inherent power under this Section can be exercised by the High
Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, it has been
observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra that the power in not to be
resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of
grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should be exercised very sparingly
to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice and that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law
engrafted in any other provision of the Code. Vide (1) Talab Hazi Hussain v.
Madhukar Purshotam; (2) Khushi Ram v. Hashim and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 542;
and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala.
137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest
Court of a State should normally retrain from giving a premature decision in a
case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when
the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the
issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard
and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court
will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quashing the proceedings at any
stage. This Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors [1990] 3 Supp. SCR 256 to which both of us were parties have dealt with
this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances
under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing
proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to
extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections
397, 401 and 482 of the Code.”
__________ Page 5 of 5
11. The Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State, AIR 1999 SC 3597,
has held that appreciation of evidence is the function of the Court when
seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected
by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a
conclusion (in the said case about the jurisdiction of the police station). It
was also observed that for the purpose of exercising its power
under Section 482 Cr. PC, to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court
would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegation made in the
complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se, it has
no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of otherwise of the allegations.
12. Having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint and the
status report filed, it is clear that the commission of cognizable offences
has been disclosed in the complaint, therefore, the registration of the FIR
as well as the filing of chargesheet, based on the material collected during
the investigation, cannot be said to be resulting into the abuse of process
of law.
13. In view of the reasons stated above, it is held that no case has been
made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail any remedy as may be
available to him under law.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul)
Judge
Jammu:
06.08.2025
ShafqatBIR BAHADUR SINGH
2025.08.19 14:07
I am the author of this
document