HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.284/2019 CrlM No.672/2019 Sugra Munir & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rahul Raina, Advocate. q vs State of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 02.07.2025 (ORAL) 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No.0179/2019, registered at Police Station, Rajouri for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 452, 354, 379, 323 and 147 RPC, primarily on the pleas of false implication and alibi. 02. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 07.04.2019, private respondent lodged a written report in the Police Station, stating inter alia that her son, namely, Irfan Sadiq was married to Sugra Munir (Petitioner No.1). The couple was leading a happy married life. It was alleged that accused/petitioners after five to six months of their marriage started misguiding her daughter-in-law with an intention to create enmity between husband and wife. On 06.04.2019, petitioners/accused, in furtherance of common criminal intention, barged their entry into her house, assaulted her, beaten her with fist and blows, torned her clothes with intention to outrage her modesty and later, they kidnapped Sr. No. 18 2 her daughter-in-law and snatched away one mobile phone. On the receipt of this report, impugned FIR came to be registered. 03. Petitioners have assailed the impugned FIR, by contending inter alia that on the day of occurrence, they were engaged in the marriage ceremony of daughter of petitioner No.5 and were at Poonch. It is also contention of the petitioners that since petitioner No.1 was already divorced by son of the respondent, there was no question of the petitioners to kidnap her daughter-in- law. Another plea taken by the petitioners is that petitioner No.2 being 16 years of age at the time of occurrence was a minor. 04. This Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction, to prevent the abuse of process of any law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, it is trite that it must be exercised with care and circumspection and FIR cannot be quashed, if it prima facie, discloses the commission of offences, petitioners are charged with. 05. I.O. along with CD file is present in the Court, a perusal whereof reveals that the Investigation Agency, during investigation, has recorded statements of material witnesses and offences aforesaid have been proved against the petitioners. Prima facie, offences, as such, are made out. The predominant plea of alibi taken by the petitioners that at the time of occurrence, they were 100 kilometers away from the place of occurrence in arrangements of the marriage ceremony of daughter of petitioner No.5, is a defence, which is required to be established by them during the course of trial. According to the Investigating Agency, petitioner No.2, at the time of occurrence, was 19 years of age and was not a minor. The petitioners shall be at liberty to take the plea of juvenility before the competent Court during the trial. 3 06. In view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable, hence dismissed along with connected application(s). Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to file final report in the competent Court. 07. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 02.07.2025 Eva Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No