Sr. No. 08 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM (M) No. 1123/2023 Davinder Kumar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- None. V/s DCP J&K Police and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA Mr. Abrar Ahmed Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 06.08.2025 1. Through the medium of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 92/2023 lodged in Police Station Bharderwah, District Doda, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 506, 147, & 148 IPC. 2. The said FIR is challenged and sought to be quashed on the ground that it has been registered on false and flimsy grounds with mala fide and malicious intent by respondent No. 5. It is submitted that the registration of the FIR amounts to misuse and abuse the process of law under the garb of Law of Land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a peace loving citizen with no criminal history, and that respondent No. 5 has lodged the FIR based on a concocted story to falsely implicate the petitioner in a frivolous case. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in response to which the FIR has been registered to pressurize him to transfer his land to him and withdraw the said suit. The allegations made in the FIR __________ are stated to be absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, it has been inferred that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that there is a civil dispute between the parties regarding land, in respect of which the petitioner has filed a civil suit. Respondent No. 5, without having any right to the land is interfering in it, with an intent to pressurize him to withdraw the civil suit, he has filed the FIR at the said Police Station. 5. After filing the present petition, the petitioner has remained absent since 11.03.2024, and has not appeared till date. 6. Status report has been filed by respondent No. 3. According to the status report, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No. 5, Narinder Kumar, on 28.07.2023. In the complaint, it was alleged that on the said date, while he and his wife were cutting grass on their land, the accused persons, namely: 1. Devinder Kumar S/o Madho Lal, 2. Arvind Kumar S/o Madho Lal, 3. Shama Devi W/o Devinder Kumar, 4. Archana Devi W/o Arvind Kumar and 5. Veena Devi D/o Madho Lal, all residents of Village Derka Batoli, Tehsil Bhalla, District Doda, trespassed into the land armed with sickles (drats), sticks, and stones, and started abusing and beating them. It was further alleged that accused Arvind Kumar, with an intention to kill the complainant, attacked him on the forehead and hand, while accused Devinder Kumar attacked complainant’s wife, and on screaming, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. 7. As the allegations contained in the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, and, therefore FIR No. 92/2023 was registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 147 and 148 IPC. The status __________ report states that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, and the alleged offences have been established. It is further stated that the investigation has been completed. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. 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. 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.” __________ 11. 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. 12. Having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint and the status report filed, it is clear that the commission of cognizable offences has been disclosed in the complaint, therefore, the registration of the FIR as well as the filing of chargesheet, based on the material collected during the investigation, cannot be said to be resulting into the abuse of process of law. 13. In view of the reasons stated above, it is held that no case has been made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail any remedy as may be available to him under law. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu: 06.08.2025 Shafqat BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.08.19 14:07 I am the author of this document