Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Romesh Singh & Anr vs State Of J&K & Anr on 18 August, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Sr. No. 10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: CRMC No. 147/2018
Romesh Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. G S Thakur, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
ORDER
18.08.2025
1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, seek quashment
of an FIR No. 22/2018 dated 13.03.2018, registered at Police Station Khour
for offences under Sections 447/427/504/506 read with Section 147 RPC.
2. It is alleged by learned counsel for petitioners that the FIR is against the
law and prima facie does not constitute an offence within the meaning of
Sections 447/427/506 RPC. Registration of an FIR is an outcome of the
revengeful attitude of respondent No.2, intending to drag petitioners’ family
into litigation. The petitioners have already instituted a civil suit which is
pending before the learned City Judge, Jammu, where status quo order has
been issued and the possession of petitioners stands protected due to the said
status quo order. It is submitted that it is admitted fact that for the purpose of
constituting offence under Section 447, there must be criminal trespass.
Since the petitioners who are already in possession of the land, there is no
question of committing an offence within the meaning of Section 447 RPC.
2. It is submitted that dispute is of purely civil nature and respondent No.2 has
converted the civil case into a criminal case, since there is a suit for
-2- CRMC No. 147/2018
declaration and partition is pending in the Court of law. The FIR has been
filed to harass the petitioners and to spoil the career of their children who are
serving in the Indian Army. The registration of FIR amounts to misuse of
process of law and does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence
as the parties have dispute with the property leftover by their mother. The
allegations in the FIR are motivated to convert the civil dispute into a
criminal offence.
3. According to the petition, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are brothers
and sister who succeeded to the estate left behind by their mother-Raj Rani,
who was the owner in possession of the land inherited by her from her father
namely Late Vakil Singh including the land falling under Khasra Nos.285
land measuring 9 kanal 1 marla besides this, 949, 15, 483, 16, 189, 384, 496,
731 and land falling under Khasra Nos. 8, 11, 11/1, 12, 13, 14, 264, 272,
290, 183 and 222 situated at three villages i.e., Najwal, Paragpura and
Malyoda, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu and total land which was owned
by their late mother was more than 200 Kanals. It is submitted that the land
was being cultivated by the late father of the petitioners, the petitioners and
their mother after inheriting the property, and was put in the pool of
common property belonging to late father and was being cultivated jointly
by the family members. The mother after the death of late father, was all
alone residing with petitioner No. 1 and in the year 2010 she was taken by
one of the brother. It is further alleged that the brother of the petitioners in a
fraudulent manner got the will deed executed in his favour by excluding all
other legal heirs which made them to challenge the will and file a suit for
declaration and challenging the will deed with respect to all movable and
immovable properties.. The suit is pending before the Court of learned City
Judge, Jammu. The land falling under Khasra No. 285 is in the cultivating
-3- CRMC No. 147/2018
possession of the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 made forcible attempt to
take the possession of the land, which act of respondent No. 2 was thwarted
by the petitioners and respondent No. 2 instead of approaching the police
and Court at Munsiff, Akhnoor filed a complaint before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported as
2022 (3) JKJ 317 (HC) Dilshada Sheikh v. Saba Sheikh, facts of which are
similar to the present case and the judgment referred to above is securely
applicable to the facts of the present case.
5. Respondent No. 2 in her objections has objected to the relief claimed in the
petition and pleased that the petitioners with dishonest intention have
deprived respondent No. 2 of his legitimate share in the joint property. It is
submitted that when the demand for partition was made, the petitioners flatly
refused and extended threats of dire consequences, as such, the acts of the
petitioners amounting to cheating, criminal breach of trust. Respondent No.
2 has, therefore, lodged the complaint giving rise to the FIR. The petitioners
have committed trespass and she claims that the said land is in her absolute
possession. She submits that there are civil proceedings pending between the
parties.
6. Station House Officer, Khour has also filed response to the petition and
submits that the FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2
alleging cheating, misappropriation and wrongful deprivation of share. After
registration of an FIR Investigation Officer visited the spot, prepared the site
plan and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and
obtained the revenue record after demarcation and investigated in the case
and found offences punishable under Sections 447/427/504/506/147
established against the accused. Further Investigation Officer arrested the
-4- CRMC No. 147/2018
Ajay Singh and released him on bail. It is submitted that Investigation was
initiated in accordance with law, and relevant evidence, including statements
of witnesses, is being collected.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. The law is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, F.I.R. or a
charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and
Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigation of cognizable
offences. However, the law is equally settled that where the allegations made
in the F.I.R. or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused, the F.I.R. or complaint may be quashed in exercise of
powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In a leading case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, certain guidelines were
issued for exercise of these powers by the Courts. In guideline number 3, it
was laid down that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R.
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose commission of any offence and do not make out a case against the
accused, the Court may quash the F.I.R. as well as the investigations. A note
of caution was added by observing that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases. It was held that the Court would not be
justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint.
9. 8. In the case of U. Dhar and others v State of Jharkhand and
others reported in AIR 2003 SC 974, the Apex Court while considering a
prayer for quashing an order of Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance
-5- CRMC No. 147/2018
of an offence against the appellants held that the dispute between the parties
was a purely civil dispute regarding payment of money and since basic
ingredients of the offence were not satisfied, the order taking cognizance of
the offence and issuance of summons to the accused was wholly uncalled for
and liable to be quashed.
10.The dispute relates to partition of property, and is already sub-judice in the
competent civil court. FIR is evidently an attempt by respondent No.2 to
convert an ongoing civil dispute into criminal proceedings, amounting to
abuse of criminal law.
11.In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as keeping in mind the principles laid
down in judgment 2022 (3) JKJ 317 (HC) Dilshada Sheikh v. Saba Sheikh,
this Court is of the considered opinion that registration of FIR was an
attempt to settle a purely civil dispute regarding partition of joint property by
resorting to criminal prosecution, such proceedings cannot be sustained, and
allowing them to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law and in
order to secure the ends of justice, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are
required to be exercised in the present case.
12. Accordingly, while exercising the jurisdiction, FIR No. 22/2018 dated
13.03.2018 registered at Police Station Khour is quashed.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
Jammu
18.08.2025
AKHILESH
[ad_1]
Source link