1 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 S. No. 33 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 207/2022 Syed Muzaffar Ahmad Shah and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K through P/S Zakura and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Waseem Gull, GA for R-1 Mr. Tufail Qadri, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 22.07.2025 1. Quashing of FIR No. 97/2021 dated 29.08.2021 for the commission of offence under Section 341 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station, Zakura, and proceedings therefrom and Order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Court of Judge Small Causes, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) in an application titled as Sohail Ahmad Banday vs. Syed Mukhtar Ahmad Shah, whereby SHO P/S Zakura, Srinagar, was directed to lodge FIR and investigate the matter, is sought for in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC before the Trial Court, alleging therein that the petitioners started threatening him with criminal intimidation, harassment and wrongfully restrained him to come out of his residential house and even manhandled him by grabbing the collar of his shirt. It is also alleged in the said application that the petitioners 1 & 2 threatened the complainant to kill him and petitioner No.3, hurled abusive language and passed derogatory remarks against him. On the filing of said application, the Trial Court is stated to have without application of mind passed order dated 24.08.2021 directing the respondent No.1 to lodge FIR and investigate the matter. The SHO concerned registered FIR in question against the petitioners. It is also averred in the petition that the application/complaint filed by 2 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 respondent No.2 as also the FIR in question do not disclose the commission of offence. 3. Respondent No.1 in his status report has stated that after receiving the complaint, a case FIR No. 97/2021 under Section 341, 506 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence, drafted site plan, recorded statements and during the course of investigation, crime under Section 341, 506 IPC was established against the accused persons/petitioners. The challan of the case has been produced before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, on 30.10.2021. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file. 5. Record of the Trial Court would reveal that investigation of the case has resulted in presentation of challan after offences were established. Detailed investigation was conducted in the case and after conclusion of investigation, offences have been established in respect of which trial is pending before the Trial Court. 6. Chapter XII, Section 154 provides information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such from as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. 7. Section 156 Cr.PC deals with the police power to investigate cognizable offences. Specially, it allows officers in charge of a police station to investigate such offences without needing a magistrate's order. Section 156(3) provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned. 8. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2014 SCC(1), that when information regarding the cognizable offence is given, it is the duty cast upon the police to mandatorily register an FIR, therefore, once information regarding the commission of cognizable offence is given to police 3 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 concerned, they are required to register FIR and start investigation of crime. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that complainant has approached the concerned police authorities for registration of FIR, but they did not take any action, therefore, he approached the Trial Court with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed the concerned SHO to register FIR. The allegations on the basis of which FIR in question has been registered is with regard to the commission of cognizable offence. The complaint is reproduced as under:- “(i) The marriage between the complainant and the sister of accused Nos. 1 & 2 has been solemnized in the year 2009 and from last four years marriage ran through rough weather. (ii) That complainant filed a suit of restitution of conjugal rights on 16.08.2021 before the learned District Judge of Family Court and same is listed for further proceedings on 13.09.2021. (iii) That the accused persons unnecessarily interfere in the matrimonial life of complainant and his wife and all the accused do not allow the wife of complainant namely Dr. Ruhi to resume the matrimonial relationship with the complainant. (iv) That the complainant arrayed accused No.1 & 2 as defendants in civil suit pending before the learned District Judge of Family Court. (v) That the all accused came to know that complainant has filed restitution of conjugal rights civil suit before the Hon’ble Judge of Family Court, Srinagar. Then afterwards all accused person started threatening the applicant with criminal intimidation, harassment and wrongfully restrained the complainant to come out of residential house and even manhandled the complainant by grabbing his collar of the shirt and accused persons threatened the complainant to kill him. Subsequently, accused No.3 showered abusive language and passed derogatory remarks against the complainant. (vi) That complainant has suffered heart attack due to uncertain and disturbed matrimonial relationship which resulted the complainant had to undergone for heart surgery by implanting the stent in the year 2017. (Annexure I). (vii) That as stated above that complainant is suffering from heart ailment so in case of any harm happens to body or health or risk or threat to life of the complainant due to persistent threat caused by the accused persons, then all accused persons shall be responsible for such untoward incident and liable for the punitive action warranted under law. (viii) The accused No. 1&2 are businessmen has connection with goons and cohorts and having Muscle and money power can go to any extent to cause bodily harm and injury to the complainant and complainant seeks police protection from the accused. 4 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 (x) That the complainant when approached police station for initiating necessary proceedings under criminal procedure code against the accused persons but the concerned police declined to take any action against accused. Therefore, complainant has no alternative but to approach this Hon’ble Court of his personal protection. That this application is supported by an affidavit duly sworn by complainant. In the premises, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the SHO P/S Zakura to register an FIR against all the accused persons and post registration of FIR investigation to the above stated facts may be ordered to be conducted and thereafter above named accused persons may be punished under relevant provisions of law. In addition to it, SHO concerned may also be directed to provide necessary protection to the life and property of the complainant from accused person.” 10. From the perusal of complaint, it is clear that there had been allegations with regard to the commission of cognizable offence alleged to have been committed by petitioners herein. The police authorities concerned were bound to register FIR, but as per the submission made by counsel for the respondent No.2, they did not register it, therefore, complainant made an application under Section 156(3) before the Trial Court, who vide order dated 24.08.2021 directed the concerned SHO to register FIR. No fault can be found as respondent No.2 initially approached police authorities for registration of FIR, which is also reflected in complaint. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties, which prompted the respondent No.2 to register FIR. It is true that there is matrimonial dispute between the respondent No.2 and sister of petitioners 1 & 2. Respondent No.2 has filed a suit of restitution of conjugal rights on 16.08.2021 before the Family Court. It would be clear from the suit as well as complaint filed by respondent No.2 that petitioners started threatening respondent No.2 with criminal intimidation, harassment and wrongfully restrained him to come out of his residential house and even manhandled him by grabbing the collar of his shirt. It is also averred in the suit that the petitioner No.1 threatened the complainant to kill him and petitioner No.3 used abusive language and passed derogatory remarks against him. These allegations constitute commission of cognizable offence. 5 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 12. Since there is sufficient material on record regarding prima facie involvement of petitioners in the case and police having conducted investigation concluding that the offences against accused are proved. 13. Having regard to allegations and report of investigation, it cannot be said that the petitioners are being prosecuted falsely or the investigation of trial would amount to abuse of process of law. 14. The Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, are to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is a very wide, but conferment of the wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 15. The above settled position of law has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Priti Saraf &anr v. State of NCT of Delhi &anr, (2021) 16 SCC 142, and it has been said that inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize a complaint / FIR/ charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare cases, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception. It has also been held by the Supreme Court whether allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led during the course of trial. 16. In the case in hand, allegations against the petitioners are that after filing the suit they indulged in activities requiring lodgement of FIR. The police authorities after recording the statement of witnesses has come to the conclusion that the offences are prima facie established and presented the challan and charge sheet framed and case is listed for recording the prosecution witnesses. 6 CRM(M) No. 207/2022 17. It is contended that the prosecution would produce evidence expeditiously without any delay in the matter and Trial Court also insists production and examination of witnesses. Insofar as respondent is concerned, he is one of the witnesses; he shall make himself available before the Trial Court for recording his statement on the date fixed for statement of prosecution witnesses. Rest of the witnesses would be produced expeditiously and the Trial Court would also conclude the Trial. 18. Viewing the matter in the above backdrop, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as sought for by the petitioners herein regarding his stand about the prosecution story or for returning any finding as to the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR. The facts as projected by the petitioners before this Court are half backed and it is not deemed apt at this stage to conclude that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vexatious in nature and so there is abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the instant petition entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 01.08.2025 16:19