Sr. No. 36 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 947/2024 Basharat Razaq …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Azmat Ullah Parihar, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K & ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- None CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL,JUDGE ORDER 05.08.2025 01. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 0228 dated 18.09.2024 registered at Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 307, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and is seeking quashment of the said FIR precisely on the following grounds:- (I) That registration of FIR enlarged by respondent No. 3 on 18.09.2024 does not disclose specific instances of commission of offences of the above mentioned section by the petitioner and lodged just to harass hi (II) That respondent No. 2 registered the said FIR against the petitioner without application of mind as the allegations prima facie show that the complaint is false and frivolous; (III) That Police Station Bahu Fort lodged the FIR against the petitioner which is the abuse of process of law because in offences like 126(2)/115(2)/307/352/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, the 2 police authorities is not bound to register the FIR as the maximum punishment in these offences is two years and section 307 of BNS is not applicable in this case as the amount of Rs. 25,000/- has not been stolen by the petitioner as he himself is a Govt. employ having 60,000/- salary and belong from financial sound family so the question of stolen money has not been justified in this case; (IV) That it is essential firstly to scrutinize the complaint made by the petitioner then the complaint made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner had to ascertain but respondent No. 3 without using application of mind and lodged the FIR against the Govt. employee. (V) That lodging of FIR in the circumstances is nothing but an abuse process of law and the same in the circumstances is wholly unwarranted and aimed at victimising the petitioner. The registration of the FIR and investigation pursuant thereto constitutes an abuse of process of law & FIR in question is required to be quashed. 02. The allegations contained in the report, on the basis of which, the said FIR has been registered read as under:- “The applicant/complainant is a student by profession residing at Bathindi, Jammu. On 17th Sept 2024 at about 8:05 Pm, the applicant was going in his car from Bathindi near Alhayat Store and suddenly the above said accused namely Basharat Hussain came in his vehicle Scorpio (Black) bearing Reg. no JKO2CG-4126 along with four other accused persons and without and rhyme and reason used filthy and abusive language and attacked the applicant with sharp edged weapons, lathis, chains and blows in his head etc and damage the iphone 13pro and car (Swift diesel) of the applicant bearing Reg. No HR29AG5365 and stole an amount of rupees 25200/- which was the Tutin installment fees of the applicant. The above said accused persons with common criminal intention having joint conspiracy attacked the applicant in order to eliminate the applicant but the applicant has somehow managed to escape and ran away from the spot in order to save his life from the clutches of accused persons. The applicant received serious injuries over the shoulder and other body parts and shifted to Govt. Hospital Gandhi Nagar Jammu for treatment under MLC No. 1282(B). The applicant approached to the concerned Police Post, Bathindi and narrated the entire story and also moved an application for 3 taking appropriate action and lodge an FIR against accused persons culprits but all in vain and the concerned police refuses to give receipt of complaint to the applicant. The accused persons after coming to know about that the applicant approached the Police Department for lodging of FIR against them, the accused persons extending threats to eliminate the applicant. The accused persons are criminal bent of mind and having no respect of law and also take law in his own hands.” 03. From the perusal of the said FIR, it is clear that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, and as such, the SHO concerned was under a statutory obligation to register an FIR and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether, despite the FIR disclosing cognizable offences, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the same. 04 Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure limits or affects inherent powers of the high Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 05 The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, has sounded a note of caution about the powers of High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561- A Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their lordships enunciated that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and 4 the issues involved, whether factual or legal, being of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material before the Court. While exercising inherent jurisdiction as observed by their Lordships, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a Trial Court. It would be none of the duties of the High Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material produced are sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty. 06 It would also be proper to refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, while summarizing the principles in the light of which inherent powers can be exercised, has observed: “132.The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. 133. The Judicial Committee in (1) Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad and (2) Lala Jai Ram Das v. Emperor has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old Code gave no new powers but only provided that those which the Court already inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till date. 134. This Court in Dr Raghubir Sharon v. The State of Bihar had an occasion to examine the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its jurisdiction when to be exercised. Mudholkar, J speaking for himself and Raghubar Dayal, J after referring a series of decisions of the Privy Council and of the various High Courts held thus: ...every High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice.... Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court to is powers.... 135. See Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr., [1958] SCR 1226 and Pampapathy v. State of Mysore [1966] (Supp.) SCR 477. 5 136. Thus, the inherent power under this Section can be exercised by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, it has been observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra that the power in not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. Vide (1) Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshotam; (2) Khushi Ram v. Hashim and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 542; and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala. 137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally retrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors [1990] 3 Supp. SCR 256 to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code.” 07. The Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State, AIR 1999 SC 3597, has held that appreciation of evidence is the function of the Court when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion (in the said case about the jurisdiction of the police station). It was also observed that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. PC, to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se, it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of otherwise of the allegations. 6 08. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, since the impugned FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to exercise its inherit jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.c. to quash the same at this stage. The allegations levelled in the said FIR, whether true or false, are matter to be ascertained during investigation, which falls within the exclusive domain of the Investigating agency. The Police shall, therefore, proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made therein. It is for the Investigating Agency to collect evidence and, based on the same, establish whether the allegations are substantiated or not. 09. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR. 10. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) Judge JAMMU RAM MURTI/PS 05.08.2025