Sr. No.10 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CRM(M) No. 702/2022 CrlM No. 1457/2022 01. Jangbahadur Singh, S/o Late Gurbaksh Singh R/o Pooja Colony, Lane No.5 ,Lower Thathar, Jammu. 02. Sandeep Singh, S/o Jangbahadur Singh R/o Pooja Colony, Lane No.5, Lower Thathar, Jammu. 03. Gurjeet Kour, W/o Sandeep Singh R/o Pooja Colony, Lane No.5, Lower Thathar, Jammu. 04. Diljeet Kour, W/o Jangbahadur Singh R/o Pooja Colony, Lane No.5, Lower Thathar, Jammu. 05. Randeep Singh, S/o Jangbahadur Singh R/o Pooja Colony, Lane No.5, Lower Thathar, Jammu …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Advocate. V/s 01. Union Territory of J&K Through Principal Secretary (Home), J&K Govt, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 02. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. 03. Station House Officer, Police Station Domana, Jammu. 04. Sushma Devi W/o Gopal Dass R/o Thathar, Jammu. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 06.05.2025 01. 1.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. 212/2020 for offence under Section 447 IPC, primarily on the ground that a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. 02. An overview of the background facts is that respondent No. 4 preferred a complaint against the petitioners for registration of FIR, alleging inter alia that petitioners without any title, right or concern over their landed property have been trespassing with an intention to grab it. It was also alleged that petitioners raised a wall over a public lane leading to the house of respondent No. 4 and they did not allow her to install iron gate and she was threatened with dire consequences, in case, she makes an attempt to install iron gate and was abused and beaten by the petitioners. Respondent No. 4/complainant also goes on to allege that petitioners/accused would also let loose their pet dog in her agricultural field with an intention to damage her crops. This is the crux of the complaint, preferred by respondent No.4. 03. The aforesaid complaint came to be forwarded by the concerned Magistrate for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC and on receipt whereof, impugned FIR for offence under Section 447 IPC came to be registered. 04. Section 482 Cr. P.C saves inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent abuse of the Court process and to secure the ends of justice. While this power is wide, it is trite that it should be exercised sparingly and with due care and caution. This Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction, primarily to address egregious violations of law and to prevent injustice. In other words, this power cannot be exercised as a substitute for the legal remedies available to a party or to scuttle the normal course of investigation or trial. The undergoing purpose of Section 482 Cr. P.C is to ensure that the legal system is not used as a tool of oppression for malicious purposes. High Court can intervene in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction only to address patent or blatant illegalities or where it is absolutely necessary in case of miscarriage of justice. Nobody can be allowed to stretch the contours of a civil transaction to impart it a criminal texture and the real test is whether the complaint or an FIR, as the case may be, prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or not. 05. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid principal of law, in mind, there is no doubt that respondent No. 4 has made an attempt to convert a dispute, purely of civil nature into criminal prosecution which is not permissible in law. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they have been interfering with the possession of respondent No. 4 over some landed property, the detail whereof is not provided in the FIR. A perusal of FIR (Annexure-IV) annexed with the petition, lodged by petitioner No. 1 against the husband of respondent No. 4 reveals that impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 4 as a counterblast to the said FIR and civil litigation between the parties. Contents of the impugned FIR prima facie do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioners. 06. In view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned FIR is quashed. 07. Petition is, accordingly ‘disposed of’ along with connected application(s). 08. Interim order shall stand vacated. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE Jammu 06.05.2025 Renu Whether the Order is speaking? Yes Whether the Order is reportable? Yes Renu Bala 2025.05.08 12.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu