Iftikhar Ahmed vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1301 j&K

                                           Supplementary Cause List No. 1
                                                   Sr. No. 1


        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                               Pronounced on : 13.10.2021
                                              CRM (M) No. 474/2021
                                              CrlM No. 1538/2021

Iftikhar Ahmed                                                 ..... Petitioner (s)
                      Through: Mr. S.S.Ahmed, Advocate with
                               Mr. Rahul Raina, Advocate.
                 Vs

Union Territory of J&K and another                           ..... Respondent (s)

                      Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

1. The petitioner-accused seeks quashment of FIR No. 49/2021 registered

with Police Station, Manjakote, District Rajouri for the offences under

Sections 452/376 IPC. It is submitted that the petitioner was having love

affair with the complainant-prosecutrix for the last more than four

months. The family of the prosecutrix is having grudge against the

family of the petitioner as the family of the petitioner herein had lodged

an FIR bearing No. 58/2018 with Police Station, Manjakote against the

maternal uncles of the prosecutrix with regard to the running of an

employment racket and collection of money from innocent youth. The

Panchayat was also held to address the issue of love affair of the

petitioner with the prosecutrix but the effort to solve the issue failed as

the family of the petitioner was pressurized to pay Rs.50,000/- orally to

settle the scores. The belated filing of the FIR and non-disclosure of the

offences are also pleaded as grounds for quashment of the FIR. The sum

and substance of the petition is that the FIR in question lodged against

the petitioner herein is the abuse of process of law.

2. The allegation leveled in the FIR is that the prosecutrix was raped in her

house on 12.04.2021 after the petitioner entered her house.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions

made in the petition during the course of arguments.

4. It is evident from the petition that the petitioner seeks quashment of the

FIR on the ground that the FIR in question is the result of the earlier FIR

No. 58/2018 which was got registered by the family of the petitioner

herein against the family of the maternal uncles of the prosecutrix, that

the FIR is filed after 13 days of the alleged occurrence and that the

Panchayat held to resolve the love affair between the petitioner and the

respondent No.2 herein did not fructify. At the outset, it is suffice to hold

that it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose the commission of

any offence against the petitioner herein as agitated by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. The truth or falsity of the serious allegations is

not required to be determined nor can be determined at this stage. The

court is not required to enquire about the reliability or genuineness of the

allegations made in the FIR. Further, merely the so called belated

registration of the case against the petitioner cannot result into

quashment of FIR by holding that frivolous case has been set up by the

prosecutrix against the petitioner.

5. The FIR in question is outcome of the rivalry between the two families is

alleged in the petition. Again this ground is not available to the petitioner

so as to seek quashment of FIR through the medium of the present

petition. It may be the matter of defense for the petitioner if he chooses

to raise the same during trial in case the FIR ultimately results into the

presentation of challan against the petitioner.

6. The high court in its exercise of inherent power should sparingly

interfere in the case where allegations leveled are serious in nature and

the matter requires investigation. The court cannot interfere in the matter

on a drop of hat while exercising such a jurisdiction. There is no dispute

that the quashment of a complaint is an exception than an ordinary rule.

The court cannot quash the FIR where the same discloses the allegation

which requires investigation by the police agency.

7. In 2021 SCC Online SC 315 titled "Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs

State of Maharashtra and others" decided on 13.04.2021, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has laid down the principles of law keeping in view the

earlier judgments where the inherent powers of the court should be

exercised by the High Court in the petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

8. The present case is not such where the FIR if allowed to remain on board

will be abuse of process of law as pleaded by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

9. The petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu :

13.10.2021 Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

PAWAN CHOPRA 2021.10.13 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document