HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 180/2023 1.Asif Ali S/o Sh. Asgar Ali R/o Village Mulaas, Tehsil Mahore, District Reasi 2. Mushtaq Ahmed S/o Sh. Qadir Shah R/o Village Dharore Mouri, Tehsil Katra, Parthal District Reasi .…Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:-Mr. Sayed Waqar, Advocate vice Mr. Arshad Majid Malik, Advocate V/s 1.The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Principal Secretary (Home), civil Secretariat, Jammu 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nagrota 3.ShabeenaBano D/o Sh. Hussain Mohammad W/o Sh. Fayaz Ahmed, R/o Village Kamini, Tehsil Nagrota, District Jammu ….Respondents(s) Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy.AG CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 1. Petitioners pray to quash FIR No.0292 dated 24.07.2022 registered at Police Station, Nagrota, District Jammu against themfor commission of offences punishable under Section 376 & 366 IPC, on the grounds mentioned in the instant petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a proposal for marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 was made by the father of respondent No. 3, which was not accepted by petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, on 26.03.2022, respondent No.3 married one Shri Fayaz Ahmed S/o Shri Mohd. Ramzan, R/o Kamini, Nagrota, Jammu. On 15.05.2022, the father and husband of respondent No.3 lodged a missing report with respondent No. 2, alleging that respondent No. 3 was missing. 3. During the course of investigation, while the matter was still under inquiry, respondent No.3 herself appeared at Police Station Nagrota on 08.07.2022, where her statement was recorded. In her statement, she categorically stated that she had neither been kidnapped by petitioner No.1 nor had he committed any offence against her. The said statement was also videographed by respondent No.2, wherein the Investigating Officer, Shri Vijay Kumar Thakur, is also visible.On the basis of her statement, the missing report was closed by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the father and husband of respondent No.3 allegedly started demanding an amount of ₹4,00,000/- from petitioner No.1, threatening that, in the event of non-fulfilment of their demand, they would lodge an FIR of kidnapping and rape against him. Since petitioner No.1 did not comply with the said illegal demand, the impugned FIR No. 0292 dated 24.07.2022 came to be registered against the petitioners. 4. The impugned FIR is sought to be quashed, precisely on the following grounds:- i) That no offence whatsoever has been committed by petitioner No. 1 or petitioner No. 2, the latter being a labourer who is not even known to respondent No. 3. The impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioners without considering the material evidence lying in the custody of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, solely with an intent to harass them; ii) That the communication dated 31.01.2023 issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nagrota to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jammu, clearly reflects that no medical examination of respondent No. 3 was ever conducted. In her statement to the Investigating Officer concerned, respondent No. 3 categorically stated that she had neither been kidnapped nor raped by petitioner No. 1, and that her medical examination had never been carried out. This, in itself, demonstrates that petitioner No. 1 has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated under Sections 376 and 366 IPC. Therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed; iii) That a bare perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that respondent No. 3 has levelled baseless and unfounded allegations against the petitioners. The said allegations are in direct contradiction to her earlier statement made before the then Investigating Officer concerned. Furthermore, there exists no factual or corroborative material to substantiate the allegations so levelled. 5. Objections have been filed by respondent no.1, in which it is statedthat the present petition is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only by leading evidence during trial before the learned Trial Court. It is stated that a status report has been submitted by the concerned Police Station, Nagrota, Jammu, revealing that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, SI Vijay Thakur, No. 196411/EXJ, visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, and recorded the statements of certain witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer got the medical examination of the victim conducted at Government Hospital, Sarwal, Jammu. The clothes of the victim, which she was wearing at the time of the incident and produced by her, were seized. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the Court of the Electricity Magistrate, Jammu. On the basis of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 342 IPC was also added in the case. The medical report and FSL report were obtained, and as per the investigation conducted and the oral as well as documentary evidence collected, offences under Sections 376, 366, and 342 IPC stand proved against the accused person, namely, Asif Ali. However, the arrest of the accused is still awaited as he has been evading arrest since the occurrence. 6. It is stated that prior to the registration of the FIR, a missing report regarding the complainant was lodged by her husband at Police Station Nagrota on 15.05.2022. During the course of the said enquiry, the missing lady, namely, Sabina Bano, was traced out and her statement recorded, whereafter the missing report was closed on 18.07.2022. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint regarding her kidnapping and rape by the accused Asif Ali, on the basis of which the instant case was registered. 7. I have heard counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the record. 8. Petitioners seek quashment of FIR No.0292 dated 24.07.2022 registered at Police Station, Nagrota against them for commission of offences under Section 376 & 366 IPC in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. iswell defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Courtto give effect to an order under the Code/Sanhita, to prevent abuse ofprocess of the court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice.This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the HighCourt to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate the materialdocuments on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction aboutthe existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accusedand the court cannot look into materials, acceptability of which isessentially a matter for the trial. 9. The law on the exercise of the powers by the High Court under Section482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR, and the parameters for exercise of such powers, and the scope and ambit of the power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are required to be referred to. The Supreme Court in the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, while dealing with inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (which is parimateria to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to the quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily the criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing this, the Supreme Court carved out some exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under: “(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.” 10. The Supreme Court has observed and held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to the whim or caprice; that the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with the circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the case of Kurukshetra University v. State ofHaryana (1977) 4 SCC 451, the High Court had quashed FIR lodged by the Kurukshetra University in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court observed that the High Courtwas not justified in quashing the FIR when the police had not evencommenced the investigation into thecomplaint filed by the Universityand no proceedings were at all pending before any Court in pursuanceof the FIR. 11. The Supreme Court in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226of the Constitution of India in the background of quashing the proceedings in the criminal investigation. After noticing the various earlier pronouncements, the Supreme Court made certain categories of cases by way of the illustration, where the power under Section 482Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102, which gives seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are reproduced as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevantprovisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles oflaw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to theof the extraordinary power under Article 226 or theinherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we haveextracted and reproduced above, we give the following categoriesof cases by way of illustration wherein such power could beexercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court orotherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not bepossible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficientlychannelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to givean exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershould be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information reportor the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute anyoffence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report andother materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by policeofficers under 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of aMagistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out acase against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizableoffence, no investigation is permitted by a police officerwithout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noprudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there issufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution andcontinuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act, providingefficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously institutedwith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accusedand with a view to spite him due to private and personalgrudge.” 12. The power of quashing the criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/Complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. 13. The Apex Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is a very wide, but conferment of the wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 14. Viewing the matter in the above backdrop, I am of the opinion that after a careful perusal of the First Information Report and the status report submitted by respondent No. 2, it is evident that the averments made in the First Information Report prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. The investigating agency is, therefore, at liberty to proceed with the investigation and, upon its completion, present the challan before the competent Court of law in accordance with law. 15. For the reasons discussed above, the instant petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE JAMMU BIR 04.08.2025 BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.08.19 14:08 I am the author of this document