1 S. No. 31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.282/2024 CrlM No.704/2024 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Aijaz Chisti, Advocate. Vs. RIFAT ARA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Ahra Syed, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 04.08.2025 (ORAL) 1. The instant petition filed by the petitioner herein, while invoking the inherent power of this Court enshrined under Section 482 CrPC, is essentially a third attempt against the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner herein by the respondent 1 herein for commission of offence under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed a complaint against the petitioner herein, on the premise that, in the year 2012, while working in a Bank in Rajbagh area of Srinagar, came to know about a Housing Corporate Society, namely “J&K Cooperative Tourism and Housing Development Corporation”, dealing with the sale of land at Bajalta Jammu near Sidra, and being interested in purchase of 7 marlas of said land, approached the petitioner herein along with her husband, and after being shown the plot of land of 7 marlas at Bajalta Jammu, the petitioner herein agreed to purchase the same and in furtherance thereof paid an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.350,000/- in presence of her husband to the petitioner herein against the various receipts, and also got an agreement to sell executed thereof at Jammu on 22.02.2015, whereunder the petitioner herein had undertaken to handover the possession of the said plot of land to her with liberty to raise construction of a residential house thereon, and 2 that despite having paid Rs.3,15,000/- to the petitioner in advance, the possession of said plot of land was not delivered to her and despite being approached at the office of said corporation at Srinagar as well at Jammu, the petitioner failed to deliver the possession of the land in question threats were extended by petitioner to her whereupon she-the complainant instituted the complaint after her attempt to get an FIR registered against the petitioner before the concerned Police Station, did not yield any result as also a legal notice served upon the petitioner by her. 3. The Complaint (supra) upon its presentation came to be entertained by the Court of City Judge/JMIC Srinagar (hereinafter for short ‘the Magistrate) on 27.12.2021 and on 08.03.2022 the said court directed the SP South, Srinagar, to conduct an inquiry in the matter while invoking the provision of Section 202 CrPC and to file a report by or before 20.04.2022. 4. The petitioner, herein aggrieved of the order dated 08.03.2022, preferred in the first attempt CRM(M) No. 196/2022 before this Court, calling in question the complaint as also order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Magistrate, which petition, however, came to be dismissed by this Court, holding the same to be premature, while leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court in case an adverse order is passed by the Magistrate against him after considering the report of inquiry. 5. The petitioner herein thereafter in the second attempt filed CRM(M) 23/2023, and while yet again challenged the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Magistrate also challenged the police report dated 20.04.2022. The said petition as well came to be dismissed as being not maintainable by this Court upon being informed by counsel for the complainant/respondent 1 herein that after the receipt of the police report, the Magistrate has taken cognizance in the complaint and also issued process against the accused petitioner in terms of order dated 25.07.2022. 6. The petitioner thereafter has maintained the instant petition yet again, seeking quashing of the police report dated 20.04.2022, besides the 3 order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 25.07.2022 and has maintained the petition on the following grounds: - a) That the Id. Magistrate at Srinagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to proceed with the same by issuance of process against the petitioner when the land is situated at Jammu and the payments received and agreements made and executed at Jammu and more so transaction is a civil dispute interse the parties. The complaint on these facts being without jurisdiction merits to be naught. b) That the Respondent No. I being in know of all the facts viz Acquisition of the land and the efforts made by the petitioner for delivery of an alternate site at Jammu to which the applicant is not agreeing to, has filed the instant complaint on false and frivolous allegations viza viz cheating and criminal intimidation, when fact of the matter remains that because of the acquisition of the land over which the dwelling houses were to be provided by the Government for establishment of office of Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner was at pains to convey to all its clients including the Respondents for an alternate site or to receive back the money deposited to which proposition the Respondent No. 1 is not agreeing and is hell bent to provide her the site which stands already acquired by the government which is beyond the control of the petitioner. c) That the whole transaction stands completed at Jammu and the land also falls within the Jammu region and as such the no complaint could be entertained by a Magistrate at Srinagar. Thus Registration of company and the impugned orders passed that too without passing fresh process after receipt of the police report being without jurisdiction merits to be quashed. d) That as reflected in the complaint itself by the Respondent No. 1 that she had already approached the Police for Registration of FIR who are on job and as such the filing of Criminal Complaint before the court is bared in law as is hit for doctrine of Double Jeopardi and the petitioner can not be waxed twice for the same allegations that too by a court at Srinagar having no jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the matter pertains to Jammu Division. The Impugned complaint as well as the orders passed in the said complaint merits to be quashed. e) That the police is harassing the petitioner and the other employees of the Society day in and day out for none of their faults and is constrained to approach this Hon'ble court through this instant petition. f) That the process initiated by the trial court is not in accordance with the scheme provided under Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code, and as such proceedings initiated by the Ld. Trial Magistrate by issuance of the process and asking the petitioner to remain present by executing an undertaking for 4 remaining present each and every hearing that to without having any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, merits to be quashed. g) That the petitioner has earlier filed a petition bearing CRMM No. 23/2023 whereby the Hon'ble High Court observing the non-assailment of the process issued by the trial court was pleased to accord a liberty to file a fresh one Heard counsel for the parries and perused the record. 7. The fundamental grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in the petition pertains to the lack of jurisdiction by the Magistrate to entertain a complaint and to proceed therewith on the premise that the subject matter land is situated in Jammu, payments received in respect of the said land inasmuch as the agreement executed thereof also stands executed in Jammu, inasmuch as, the dispute inter-se the parties is of civil nature and that the complaint is baseless and unfounded. Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code contained in Chapter XIII would provide that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The expression “ordinarily appearing in Section 177 (supra) signifies that territorial jurisdiction of the court under Section 177 has to be based upon the principles and factors that need to be kept in mind while determining such territorial jurisdiction. The Apex Court in case title as “Swaati Nirkhi and Ors. Vs. State (NCR of Delhi) and Ors”., reported in 2021 (11) SCC 163, while dealing with the provisions of Section 177 CrPC has inter-alia held that ordinarily a place of enquiry or trial has to be by the court within whose local jurisdiction the crime allegedly is committed or where the cause of action has accrued while elucidating further that the cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which give cause to a party to seek redress in a court of law and give allegedly affecting party a right to claim relief against the opponent and that it must include some act done by the latter since in absence of such an act, no cause of action would accrue or would arise. In case titled as “Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and Ors”, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 92 the Apex Court while 5 dealing the question of territorial jurisdiction and distinguishing factors in civil as well as in criminal cases summarized various principles and inter-alia held that where an offense is committed partly in one area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas while providing further that where an offense consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. Reverting back to the case in hand perusal of the complaint and annexures appended thereto, manifestly show the address of the Corporation at Jammu and Srinagar as well. Although the agreement inter se the petitioner and complainant/respondent 2 herein has been executed at Jammu setting out terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of plot in question, yet the execution of the said agreement cannot be taken into consideration in isolation, excluding the contentions of the petitioner urged in the complaint qua the official address of the Corporation at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, inasmuch as the receipts of the payments made and executed by the Corporation. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments supra, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said and held that the Magistrates have had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as such, the said plea of the petitioner is held to be grossly misconceived. 9. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner that the whole transaction inter-se the petitioner and complainant/respondent 1 is civil in nature and criminal prosecution was not warranted and that the complaint is false, baseless and unfounded is concerned, the said pleas could not be raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, in that, the petitioner has not thrown challenge to the complaint in the instant petition and the said plea of transaction being civil in nature and not criminal thus, cannot be adverted to. Besides other plea of the petitioner that the complaint is baseless and unfounded as well cannot be looked into being factual in nature and thus not amenable to be adjudicated upon in the instant petition in exercise of inherent power, which power otherwise is to be exercised rarely and with circumspection . 6 10. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not made any observation or recorded any findings with regard to guilt or innocence of the petitioner in that matter. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.08.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether approved for reporting ? Yes