Recently, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to examine the legality of a criminal prosecution arising from a kidnapping and rape FIR, where the petitioner alleged abuse of process, suppression of material facts, and a mala fide investigation.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from registration of FIR under Section 363 of the Ranbir Penal Code at Police Station Achabal, based on a complaint alleging kidnapping of the informant’s daughter by the Petitioner. During investigation, the victim was recovered, medically examined, and found to be a major, with no evidence of sexual assault. Victims statement recorded under Section 164-A of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed that she had voluntarily married the petitioner. The same fact was reiterated during habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court, though the victim chose to reside with her parents. Despite these developments, after a delay of more than six years, a charge-sheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 366, 376 and 343 RPC, without disclosing the habeas corpus proceedings or the victim’s statements, leading to the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the prosecution was a clear abuse of the criminal process, initiated on a false projection that the victim was a minor. It was argued that the investigating agency deliberately ignored and suppressed material facts, including the victim’s consistent statements affirming her majority and voluntary marriage. It was further submitted that the unexplained delay in filing the charge-sheet and the omission of judicial records demonstrated mala fide intent, warranting the exercise of inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondent State opposed the petition, asserting that the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed the commission of cognisable offences. It was contended that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Observation of the Court:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh found that the investigation and prosecution were fundamentally flawed and reflected a clear abuse of criminal process. The Court noted that the FIR itself was premised on a misrepresentation of the victim’s age, despite documentary and medical evidence showing that she was a major at the relevant time.
Criticising the conduct of the investigating agency, the Court observed that “The registration of FIR No. 93/2015 at the instance of the complainant… was a scripted one from the very inception.”
The Court took serious exception to the suppression of the habeas corpus proceedings and the victim’s statement recorded before the High Court, wherein she had categorically acknowledged her voluntary marriage with the Petitioner and denied any allegation of abduction or sexual violence. It was observed that such material facts were deliberately omitted from the charge-sheet.
Emphasising the mala fide nature of the prosecution, the Court held that “The investigation… was with a mindset to torment the petitioner of having dared to indulge in an inter-religion marriage.”
The Court further cautioned against mechanical prosecution and underscored the duty of criminal courts to scrutinise charge-sheets at the threshold, observing that “If this Court allows the criminal case so presented to run its course, then it would be nothing but a sheer persecution of the petitioner at the cost of high ends of justice.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings, holding that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the criminal process.
Case Title: Sunny Kashyap Vs UT Of J&K
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 507/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rahul Bharti
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Pranav Sharma, Adv. M. Asif Mir
Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Iliyas Nazir Laway
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
