Surinder Kumar And Others vs State Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 878 j&K

                           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                           AT JAMMU

                                                                      Reserved on:   06.08.2021
                                                                      Pronounced on: 13.08.2021

                                                                      CRMC No. 110/2018

           Surinder Kumar and others                                 ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)


                                   Through :- Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate

                          v/s      <




           State of J&K and another                                         .....Respondent (s)
           't




                                   Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R. Nos. 1 & 2
                                              Mr. Narinder K. Attri, Advocate for
                                              complainant


           Coram:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                                   JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing

FIR bearing No. 0382 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017 registered with Police Station,

Domana for commission of offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC

against the petitioners.

2. It is stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners,

namely, late Sh. Rattan Lal had purchased land measuring 12 Kanals falling

under Khasra No. 1418/311, Khewat No. 04, situated at Village Raipur Domana,

Jammu from its owner, namely, late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma S/o Sh. Ganga

Dutt i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the complainant, namely, Sanjeev Sharma,

through three different Sale Deeds, which were registered by the Sub-Registrar,

Jammu (2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu) on 05.08.2003, 08.08.2003 and

31.12.2003 and thereafter, the mutations with respect to the land were also

attested in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. After the demise

NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.13 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, mutation of inheritance was also

attested in favour of the petitioners being the legal heirs. It is further stated that

in the month of September 2017, legal heirs of Late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma

challenged the above said three sale deeds before the court of learned Munsiff,

Jammu and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the

said land. Thereafter, one of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma

namely Sh. Sanjeev Sharma filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jammu that was referred to the respondent No. 2 for investigation

and as such, FIR bearing No. 0382 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017 was registered

against the petitioners. In the complaint, it is stated that deceased Gopal Krishan

Sharma neither approached the revenue authorities for issuing fard intkhab nor

he gave any consent to execute the sale deed. The deceased Rattan Lal with the

manipulation of revenue authorities got the fard intkhab of 12 Kanal of land that

is irrigated and by impersonation and misrepresentation produced some other

person in place of Gopal Krishan Sharma and got the sale deeds registered

whereas, deceased Gopal Krishan never signed in English but he always signed

in Hindi. It is also stated in the complaint that under section 8 of Agrarian

Reforms Act, the land could not be alienated. In the complaint it was

specifically mentioned that predecessor-in-interest of the accused persons

(petitioners herein) has played a fraud and prepared forged documents only to

grab the land of the complainant and his other family members.

3. The petitioners have challenged the FIR primarily on the ground

that the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is the result of total non-

application of mind on the part of respondent No. 2 as bare perusal of complaint

reveals that no offence much less a cognizable offence has been alleged to have

been committed by the petitioners. It is further stated that impugned FIR is NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.13 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

nothing but a result of abuse of process of law by the respondent No. 2. It is

further stated that the petitioners have nothing to do with the commission of

alleged offences and the allegations in the complaint have been made only

against the deceased father of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be

prosecuted on the basis of such allegations. It is further stated that falsity of the

allegations made in the complaint would also be manifest from the fact that

neither Gopal Krishan Sharma who sold the land to predecessor in interest of the

petitioners nor any of his legal heirs raised grievance with regard to the sale

deeds during the lifetime of late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma.

4. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it is stated that

on the basis of statements recorded, offences under sections 447/109 RPC were

added and offences under sections 467/468/471/420/447 and 109 RPC were

initially proved against the accused persons namely 1. Lt. Rattan Lal S/o Shiv

Ram, 2. Surinder Kumar, 3. Mohinder Kumar both S/o Lt. Rattan Lal All R/o

Raipur Domana, 4. Kuldeep Singh S/o Dhamal Singh R/o Kot Bhalwal, 5.

Sandhoor Singh S/o Kirpa Ram R/o Raipur Domana, 6. Dev Raj S/o Shiv Ram

R/o Raipur Domana, 8. Girdowar then posted at Raipur Domana and 9.

Tehsildar posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana. Record pertaining to the

signatures of late Gopal Krishan was also seized and after seizure memo of all

the documents, statement of the witnesses were also recorded and the offences

under sections 467/468/471/420/447/109 RPC were finally proved against the

accused persons 1. Rattan Lal S/o Shiv Ram, 2. Surinder Kumar both R/o Raipur

Domana, 3. Kuldeep Singh S/o Dhamal Singh R/o Kot Bhalwal, 4. Sandhoor

Singh S/o Kirpa Ram R/o Raipur Domana, 5. Dev Raj S/o Shiv Ram R/o Raipur

Domana, 6. Patwari then posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana and 7.

Tehsildar posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana.

NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.13 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5. Mr. Rahil Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

argued that there is no allegation that the petitioners at any point of time

committed any offence and only allegation is against the predecessor in interest

of the petitioners.

6. Per contra, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG vehemently argued that

Investigating Officer has established the offences against the accused persons 1.

Rattan Lal S/o Shiv Ram, 2. Surinder Kumar both R/o Raipur Domana, 3.

Kuldeep Singh S/o Dhamal Singh R/o Kot Bhalwal, 4. Sandhoor Singh S/o

Kirpa Ram R/o Raipur Domana, 5. Dev Raj S/o Shiv Ram R/o Raipur Domana,

6. Patwari then posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana and 7. Tehsildar posted

in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana and the evidence collected by the Investigating

Officer cannot be appreciated while deciding petition under section 561-A

Cr.P.C (now 482 Cr.P.C).

7. Mr. Narinder K. Attri, learned counsel for complainant submitted

that there is ample evidence against the said petitioner No. 1, who has signed the

sale deed dated 31.12.2003 as marginal witness and has also appeared as

identifier at the time of registration of the sale deed. He further submitted that

petitioner No. 1 has also appeared as identifying witness at the time of

registration of the sale deed 08.08.2003.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. So far as, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the perusal of status

report reveals that the offences have been proved against the abovementioned

accused persons i.e. 1. Rattan Lal S/o Shiv Ram, 2. Surinder Kumar both R/o

Raipur Domana, 3. Kuldeep Singh S/o Dhamal Singh R/o Kot Bhalwal, 4.

Sandhoor Singh S/o Kirpa Ram R/o Raipur Domana, 5. Dev Raj S/o Shiv Ram

R/o Raipur Domana, 6. Patwari then posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana and NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.13 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

7. Tehsildar posted in 2003/2004 at Raipur Domana. In the details of the

accused, only the petitioner No.1 is figuring and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are no

where figuring. Otherwise also there is nothing in FIR that demonstrates that the

petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have committed any offence and also they are not

signatory to any alleged forged document. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 cannot be

held liable for the commission of offence if any, by their predecessor-in-interest

and also there is no allegation against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. So far as,

petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there are certain allegations against him with

regard to being the marginal witness and the identifying witness. It is difficult to

say at this stage that there is nothing on record against the petitioner No. 1.

10. In view of the above, the present petition qua the petitioner Nos. 2

to 4 is allowed and FIR impugned is quashed qua the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4.

The respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court afresh in the event any

evidence appears in future against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. So far as petitioner No.

1 is concerned the petition stands dismissed.

11. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 13.08.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No

NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.13 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document