Sr. No. 34 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CRMC No. 88/2019 Sumesh Kumar …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate V/s Amar Parsad ... Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 10.03.2025 01. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the Excise Magistrate, Jammu, on a complaint filed by respondent against the petitioner and two more accused alleging commission of offence under Sections 504 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code. 02. Nobody has appeared in this case on behalf of the respondent on the last date of hearing. Today also none has appeared for the respondent. 03. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including the record of the trial court. -2- CRMC No. 88/2019 04. It appears that a complaint has been made by respondent against the petitioner and three more persons who happen to be police officials alleging therein, that on 08.02.2018, accused No. 2, Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Police Station, Akhnoor at the behest of the petitioner kidnapped the respondent (complainant) while he was in his showroom at Akhnoor. It has been alleged that four police personnel were sent to his showroom at about 4:30 pm on the said date, and the complainant was brought to Police Station Akhnoor. According to the complainant, he was illegally confined for more than 3 hours without there being any FIR against him. Inside the police station, accused persons used filthy language against him. It has been further alleged that accused No. 2 pressurized the complainant to pay an amount of ₹25 lakhs. 05. The learned trial Magistrate after recording preliminary statements of the complainant and his witnesses, recorded a prima facie opinion that offences under Sections 504 and 342 RPC are made out against the petitioner and co-accused. Accordingly, impugned order dated 17.05.2018, was passed whereby process has been issued against the petitioner and the co-accused. 06. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the allegations levelled in the impugned complaint and the statements of the complainant’s witnesses do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner. It has -3- CRMC No. 88/2019 been further contended that dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely of civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour by respondent-complainant. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate has, without applying his mind, issued process against the petitioner in a mechanical manner. 07. If we have a look at the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, it appears that there was civil dispute going on between the petitioner and the complainant. They had entered into an agreement to sell with respect to land situated at Dasgal, Tehsil Akhnoor. It also appears that the complainant had alleged that the petitioner did not pay whole of the agreed sale consideration and instead started demanding refund of the earnest money which he had paid to the complainant. 08. From the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, it is clearly disclosed that petitioner/accused No. 1 intended to get his earnest money refunded from the respondent-complainant and for this purpose he approached the police. The police officials, who happen to be accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the complaint called the respondent to the police station where according to the respondent-complainant, he was wrongfully confined without there being any FIR against -4- CRMC No. 88/2019 him. It has been claimed by the complainant and his witnesses that he was abused by the police officials and was asked to refund the money of petitioner-accused No. 1. 09. Even if the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses are taken to be true at their face value, still then no offence is disclosed against the petitioner, who as a law-abiding citizen has only approached the police to lodge a grievance with regard to non-refund of earnest money by respondent-complainant. If, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner/accused No. 1, the officials of the police have exceeded their powers and wrongfully confined complainant/respondent and have abused him, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the same. In fact neither complainant nor his witnesses have stated that the petitioner either abused him or wrongfully confined him. They have made such allegations only against the police officials 10. The learned Magistrate while issuing the process against the petitioner has ignored the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has in a mechanical manner issued process against all the accused without differentiating the role of petitioner, who had only voiced his grievance before the police station, Akhnoor. The order passed by the learned trial Magistrate to the extent of issuing process to -5- CRMC No. 88/2019 the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by respondent is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate to the extent of issuing process against the petitioner is quashed. 12. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 10.03.2025 AKHILESH