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