HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 127/2020 Ratno Devi and Anr. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. J. P. Gandhi, Advocate. q vs UT of J&K and Anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 09.07.2025 (Oral) 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 [“Cr. P. C.”] for quashment of FIR No. 21/2020 registered with Police Station R. S. Pura for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 109 IPC, primarily on the grounds of false implication and that the contents of FIR prima facie do not disclose the commission of any offence against them. 02. As factual narration of present case would unfurl, the private respondent lodged a written report against the petitioners and their son, namely, Parshotam Kumar alleging inter alia that about 3 years back petitioner No. 1 came to her house, with a marriage proposal with her son, to which her parents agreed. It is alleged by the complainant/prosecutrix that thereafter, son of the petitioners would often come to her house and developed sexual relation with her. She was taken to various places and hotels and was sexually exploited. She dissuaded him, but son of the petitioners co-accused Parshotam Kumar continuously exploited her on the pretext that they are going to marry soon. He remained in touch with her for three years and now refusing to marry. It is also alleged by the Sr. No. 03 2 CRM(M) 127/2020 complainant-prosecutrix that petitioners/accused were also helping their son Parshotam Kumar. The prosecutrix goes on to allege that said Parshotam Kumar clicked her nude pictures and threatened to circulate them. She had come to know that Parshotam Kumar was going to marry with some other girl and when she objected to it, the petitioners came to her house and had abused and beaten her. On the receipt of this report, aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioners and their son, co-accused-Parshotam Kumar. 03. Extra-ordinary jurisdication of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a trite position of law that where the allegation made in the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be , if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioners accused or where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner accused or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court, in exercise of it extra-ordinary or inherent jurisdiction, is entitled to quash the FIR or a proceeding because allowing such FIR or a complaint or a proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court and the ends of justice would require that such proceedings ought to be quashed. Such criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon of oppression or harassment or persecution. We may here gainfully refer to State 3 CRM(M) 127/2020 of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors; 1992 Suppl. SCC 335 and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors; 1977 2 SCC 699. 04. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid statutory mandate and the settled position of law, it is manifest that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner by the complainant/prosecutrix with malice and ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they are helping their son Parshotam Kumar to sexually exploit the prosecutrix. Such allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. The complainant has not even provided specific details as to the date and time when they offered any help to their son for sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix or at what point of time they entered the house of the prosecutrix and beat her. The allegations made in the FIR, impugned in the present case, taken at its face value, do not prima face constitute any offence against the petitioner. 05. Hence the present petition is allowed and impugned FIR is quashed. 06. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). 07. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 09.07.2025 Sushant