HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. 561-A No. 53 OF 2005 Des Raj and ors. Petitioners State of J&K SRTC & another Respondent !Mr. B.L. Kalgotra, Advocate for the Appellant ^Mr. P.C. Sharma, AAG, for the Respondent. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge Date: 20.16.2008 :J U D G M E N T :
1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section
561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short Code, for quashing the FIR No.
124/03 Police Station Hiranagar on the grounds taken in the petition. This petition came
to be filed on 20th of May, 2005 i.e. after lapse of two years from the date of lodging of
FIR and is on board for the last three years. In the meantime it appears that investigation
came to be concluded and Investigating Officer presented a challan-chargesheet before
the committal court and the committal court committed the case to the court of Sessions
Judge, Kathua-trial court. The trial Court vide order dated 10th of May, 2006 prima-facie
held that the accused are involved in the commission of offence punishable under section
302 r.w. Section 34 of RPC.
2. The allegations as put forth by the investigation are that Ramesh Lal had
developed illicit relations with the daughter of accused Des Raj and on the previous
occasion the deceased was nabbed in the house of the accused but he escaped and that
was the cause of enmity. The accused were waiting for opportune time to take revenge.
On 22nd of June 2003, the deceased had gone to attend marriage function in the house of
Ganesh Das and came back on 23rd of June, 2003 in a bad shape. It was alleged that he
was severally beaten up and subjected to the physical violations with an injury near his
eye and the eye was bleeding. Initially the FIR was lodged under section 306 RPC and
thereafter the condition of-the deceased deteriorated and he passed away. At the initial
stage it was suspected that the death of deceased was due to poisoning but during
investigation, the Investigating Officer collected material and it disclosed that the
accused are involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 302 read
with 34 of RPC. It is also alleged that accused No. 1 and 2 have also made disclosure
statements. The alleged weapons of offence i.e. rope and bamboo stick, came to be
recovered in terms of the said disclosure statements. Accordingly accused came to be
charge-sheeted by the trial court for the commission of offence punishable under section
302 read with section 34 of RPC. The Photostat copies of the order dated 10th of May
2006 and the charge-sheet are made part of the file.
3. Petitioners Des Raj and Marna Devi are figuring as accused No. l and 2 in the said
charge-sheet-challan and accused No. 3 Vaishno Devi-petitioner No.3 came to be
proceeded against in terms of Section 512 Cr. P.C. The petitioners have neither
questioned the final charge-sheet presented by Investigating Officer in terms of Section
173 Cr. P.C and the order dated 10th of May, 2006 passed by the trial court whereby and
where-under accused No. 1 and 2-petitioner No.1 and 2 came to be charge-sheeted.
4. The main ground of attack in the petition is that the contents contained in the
report do not disclose the commission of cognizable offence. While going through the
FIR, one comes to inescapable conclusion that it discloses commission of cognizable
offence. Be it as it is, now the investigation is complete and the accused are charge-
sheeted after prima-facie found involved in the commission of said offences by the trial
court. In the given circumstances, the petition merits outright dismissal.
5. Even otherwise it is beaten law of the land that the inherent powers are to be
invoked sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare case and when the FIR
discloses the commission of offence no interference is required as that will amount to
interference with the investigation. The Apex Court in the recent past in a case titled Som
Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka reported as 2008 AIR SCW 1003, held as under: –
…In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court
in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code in a routine manner. It
has been consistently held that the power under section 482 must be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The
exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave
miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the
accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima-facie
it appears to Court that the trial would like to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the
inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be
invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. ”
6. Apex Court in a case titled S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat and another reported as
2001 Cr.L.J 4195 held that FIR ought not to be thwarted at the initial stage unless
materials do not disclose an offence.
7. The Apex Court in a case reported as AIR 2004 SC 3967 held that courts should
normally refrain from giving prima-facie decision when entire facts of case are incomplete
and hazy-when evidence was not collected and issues involved could not be seen in their
true perspective.
8. Apex Court in a case reported as AIR 1994 SC 1256 held that when the FIR
discloses the cognizable offence and registration of F.I.R. was only beginning of
investigation, it is not proper to quash F.I.R. at that stage.
9. Having glance of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that this
petition merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.