Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mobeen Akhter & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 14 July, 2025
Sr. No. 09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No.617/2024
CrlM No. 1250/2024
Mobeen Akhter & Ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
q
Through: Mr. Shamas-ud-Din Shaaz, Advocate.
vs
UT of J&K & Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
14.07.2025
(ORAL)
01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No.0120/2024 for the commission of offences
under Sections 452/323/147 IPC.
02. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, private respondent
No.3 namely, Chana Bi preferred a complaint in the court of learned Sub-Judge,
Surankote under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging, inter alia, that on 08.05.2024,
petitioners-accused, in furtherance of common criminal intention, trespassed into
her residential house and started beating her with fists and blows. The complaint
was forwarded to the respondent Police Station.
03. On the receipt of aforesaid complaint, impugned FIR came to be registered
against the petitioners. During investigation, the I.O. besides legal formalities,
recorded statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for official respondents No.1 and 2 has also produced medical
report of the injured. Same is taken on record.
04. The investigation revealed that son of the complainant namely, Khalid
Manzoor married petitioner No.1-Mobeen Akhter in 2008. Later, Khalid Manzoor
divorced his wife-petitioner No.1. It surfaced during investigation that on
2
08.05.2024, when complainant was coming back from her cattle shed and reached
near her residential house, at about 07.00 hrs, petitioner No.1, Mobeen Akhter
restrained her, beat her with fists and blows and pelted stones, due to which, she
sustained injuries. It also transpired, during investigation that rest of petitioners
No.2 to 5 were not present at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, offences under
Sections 341/323 IPC were established against petitioner No.1 only.
05. This Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction, to prevent the abuse of
process of any law or to secure the ends of justice. However, this jurisdiction can
be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. It is trite
that if the contents of the FIR or the complaint, prima facie disclose the
commission of cognizable offence/offences, this Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations and
scuttle or stifle the investigation.
06. Since the impugned FIR prima facie discloses the commission of
cognizable offences and same have been established against petitioner No. 1
during investigation, the present petition does not call for interference.
07. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition on behalf of petitioner No. 1
is dismissed and since the involvement of rest of the petitioners has not been
proved during investigation, the present petition on behalf of rest of the
petitioners is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
08. Disposed of along with connected CrlM(s).
09. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
14.07.2025
Meenakshi
[ad_1]
Source link