CRMC No.363/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 21.07.2025 Pronounced on: 25.07.2025 CRMC No.363/2018 KHURSHID AHMAD SHAH & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Baber Bilal Malik, Advocate. Vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Magistrate”), as also FIR No.32/2018 for offences under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir. 2) It appears that respondents No.3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainants”) filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C before the learned trial Magistrate seeking a direction for registration of FIR against the petitioners herein and two more persons, namely, Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar. In CRMC No.363/2018 the application it was alleged that respondent No.3 herein had purchased a three storeyed house with shop in its ground floor in the year 1996 by virtue of sale deed dated 1st November, 1996, executed by respondent No.4 herein in his capacity as Attorney Holder of erstwhile owner, Smt. Chandra Kanta, who is a resident of Jammu. It was pleaded that said Smt. Chandra Kanta had executed a Power of Attorney dated 16.04.1996 in favour of respondent No.4, which was witnesseth by Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the sons of Smt. Chandra Kanta. It was further stated that the complainants took over physical possession of the property in question but petitioner No.2 herein, who was holding possession of the shop in the said purchased building as a tenant, proved to be a bad tenant. It was also pleaded that after some negotiations, petitioner No.2 executed a rent deed in respect of the said shop with respondent No.3 herein. 3) It was alleged in the application that petitioner No.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with petitioner No.1 along with Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma with a view to grab the rented shop and filed a suit seeking a declaration that the rent deed executed by petitioner No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 is null and void. It was also pleaded in the application that petitioner CRMC No.363/2018 No.2 managed to influence a stranger to the property, namely, Shanti Saroop, to file an application for impleadment in the said suit, which was allowed in terms of order dated 07.10.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.56/2004. 4) It has been further submitted that after the death of Shanti Saroop, Rajesh Kumar managed a Power of Attorney on behalf of legal heirs of Shanti Saroop in his favour. Thus, according to the complainants, the petitioners along with Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma have indulged in criminal conspiracy to grab the shop in question by deceitful means. It has been further pleaded that petitioner No.1, who had no interest in the subject matter of the suit filed by petitioner No.2, intentionally and deliberately put his signature on the original sale deed filed by respondent No.3 in the said suit during admission and denial of documents. 5) It has been contended in the application that the petitioners along with their associates have entered into a criminal conspiracy and resorted to deceitful means with a view to grab the shop of respondent No.3 and that they have threatened the complainants of dire consequences. 6) The aforesaid application was considered by the learned trial Magistrate, whereafter a report was sought CRMC No.363/2018 from Police Station, Maisuma, Srinagar. After obtaining the report from the police, the learned trial Magistrate observed that there are grounds to register a cognizable case and to proceed ahead with the investigation. Accordingly, SHO, Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir, was directed to enquire about the case and proceed with registration of a cognizable case if the same is made out. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the learned trial Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir. 7) The petitioners have challenged the impugned order and the impugned FIR on the grounds that the learned trial Magistrate has, without appreciating the real controversy between the parties, proceeded to pass the impugned order directing registration of FIR. It has been further contended that the power exercised by the learned trial Magistrate is in violation of the mandate laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and by directing registration of FIR, the learned trial Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the contents of the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4 before the learned trial Magistrate, even if taken to be true at their face value, do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. It has been contended that the impugned proceedings have been initiated against the CRMC No.363/2018 petitioners with a view to pressurize them to settle the civil case which they have filed against the complainants. 8) The respondent Investigating Agency, in its reply to the petition, has narrated the contents of the application filed by the complainants against the petitioners and their associates. It has been submitted that during the course of investigation, it was found that the complainants had purchased three storeyed building with shop in its ground floor from Chander Kanta in the year 1996 through her Attorney Holder, respondent No.4 herein, who happens to be her husband. It was also found that physical possession of the property was taken over by respondent No.3 and the property was also mutated in her name in the revenue records. The shop situated in the said property was rented out to petitioner No.2 in the year 1996 and an agreement came to be executed between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 in presence of the witnesses. The Investigating Agency further found that petitioner No.2 had filed a suit before the civil court challenging the said rent deed and during proceedings of the said suit, the complainants filed their written statement along with the original documents viz. sale deed and rent deed before the civil court. It was also found that the complainants also filed a civil suit for CRMC No.363/2018 eviction against petitioner No.2 and both these suits are subjudice. 9) According to the respondent Investigating Agency, when the complainants approached the civil court for obtaining certified copies of the original documents of the property in question which they had submitted before the civil court, they came to know that the sale deed had been forged as certain insertions had been made in the original sale deed which was in the custody of the court and the petitioners had affixed their signatures upon the said sale deed. It was found that the certified copy of the sale deed which the complainants had obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar did not contain any such signatures meaning thereby that the documents lying in the custody of the court had been manipulated and forged by the petitioners in connivance with the court staff. Thus, according to the Investigating Agency, offences under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC are made out against the petitioners. 10) The complainants have not contested the petition. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the case, complainant/respondent No.3 expired and her legal heirs were brought on record. 11) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. CRMC No.363/2018 12) If we have a look at the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4 against the petitioners before the learned trial Magistrate, it is nowhere asserted therein that the complainants had either approached the Incharge of Police Station concerned or the Superintendent of Police concerned prior to making such application before the learned trial Magistrate. It was incumbent upon the complainants to comply with the provisions contained in Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the Magistrate for a direction in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. 13) In terms of Section 154(1) of Cr. P. C, every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence has to be given to an officer in charge of a police station. In case a person is aggrieved by refusal on the part of the officer in charge of the police station to record information, he has to send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. 14) It is nowhere pleaded in the application filed by complainants/respondents No.3 and 4 before the learned trial Magistrate that they had either approached the incharge of the police station concerned or the CRMC No.363/2018 Superintendent of Police concerned before filing the said complaint. The complainants have not annexed any material with the application to show that they have followed the mandate of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr. P. C nor have they filed any affidavit in support of the application filed under Section 156(3) before the learned trial Magistrate. 15) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava vs. U. P and others, 2015(6) SCC 287, held that there has to be a prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr. P. C while filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. It has been further held that both these aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect have to be filed. The Court has further held that an application under Section 156(3) has to be supported by an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious that no false affidavit is made. 16) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Ranjit Singh Bath and another vs. UT of Chandigarh and another (Criminal Appeal No.4313 of 2024 decided on 06.03.2025), held that without adhering to the requirements of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr. P. C, a Magistrate cannot direct registration of FIR under CRMC No.363/2018 Section 156(3) as the same would be contrary to the binding decision in Priyanka Sharivastava’s case (supra). 17) In the face of aforesaid legal position, the impugned direction passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby respondent Crime Branch has been directed to proceed with registration of a cognizable case on the basis of the application filed by the complainants under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C, is contrary to the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Sharivastava’s case (supra) and, as such, the same cannot be sustained in law. The registration of FIR pursuant to the aforesaid direction is, therefore, also not sustainable in law. 18) Even on merits, the allegations made in the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4 against petitioners under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence against them. The crux of the allegations made the said application, as verified by the respondent Investigating Agency during the preliminary verification, is that the petitioners appended their signatures on the original sale deed relating to the property which was subject matter of the suit while the said sale deed was in custody of the civil court. A perusal of the photocopy of the said sale CRMC No.363/2018 deed, which has been placed on record, reveals that the petitioners have appended their signatures on the same while undertaking admission and denial of the documents. They have endorsed “not admitted” and thereafter put their signatures, which have been attested by the Presiding Officer of the civil court. The said proceedings have been conducted while the original documents were put for admission and denial of the parties in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This act of the petitioners under the directions of the civil court, can, by no stretch of reasoning, be termed as insertion or forgery in the original sale deed placed on record of the civil court by the plaintiffs/complainants. 19) Marking of a document produced before the court as an exhibit or as admitted/denied during the course of admission/denial proceedings undertaken in terms of Order 13 of the CPC does not amount to commission of forgery of the said document. The inference drawn by the learned trial Magistrate and by the Investigating Agency, that marking of the sale deed and putting signatures on it during admission/denial proceedings would amount to forgoing of the said document, is absolutely absurd. Thus, no offence, much less an offence of cognizable nature, is made out against the petitioners even if CRMC No.363/2018 contents of the application are taken to be true at their face value. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the present case appears to be fit one where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 561-A of J&K Cr. P. C to quash the impugned proceedings so as to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law. 21) Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned trial Magistrate and the impugned FIR emanating therefrom registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir, along with the consequent proceedings, are quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 25.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.07.2025 03:19