Anil Khanna Age 50 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 836 j&K

                                                                     Sr.No. 84

            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU
                                                       CRM(M) No. 249/2021
                                                       CrlM No. 684/2021
                                                       CrlM No. 685/2021
                                                       CrlM No. 785/2021

                                                       Reserved on : 12.04.2022
                                                       Pronounced on : 24.05.2022
1. Anil Khanna age 50 years S/O Sh. Ramesh Raj
   Khanna;
2. Smt. Chander Kanta age 75 years w/o Sh.
   Ramesh Raj Khanna;
3. Ramesh Raj Khanna age 78 years S/O Sh. P.R.
   Khanna;
   All residents of House No. 9 Extension "E"
   Bharat Nagar Talab Tillo Jammu;
4. Monika Pandoh age 46 years w/o Sh. Susheel
   Pandoh;
5. Susheel Pandoh age 53 years both residents of
   649-A Gandhi Nagar Jammu.                                         ....Petitioner(s)
        Through :-    Sh. K.S. Johal Sr. Advocate with
                      Sh. Supreet Singh Johal Advocate.

                      V/s
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
   Commissioner Secretary to Govt. Home
   Department Government of Jammu and Kashmir
   Civil Secretariat Jammu;
2. Sr. Superintendent of Police J&K Jammu;
3. Station House Officer/Incharge Police Station
   Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu;
4. Pooja Khanna w/o Sh. Anil Khanna D/O Late Sh.
   Som Parkash Suri R/O H. No. 159 Sector 1                        ....Respondent(s)
   Sanjay Nagar Jammu.

        Through :-    Sh. Amit Gupta, AAG for R-1,2&3;
                      Ms. Monika Kohli Advocate for R-4

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

                                  O R D E R

24. 05. 2022

1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19-02-2021 passed by Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu in complaint filed by respondent No.4 u/s 156(3) of Cr.pc, whereby, Ld. Magistrate has directed respondent No.3

(SHO Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu) to register FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 against the petitioners for alleged commission of offences u/ss 498-A/109 of IPC. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 & registration of FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021, petitioners have questioned their legality, propriety and correctness on the following counts:-

(i) that petitioners are citizens of India & therefore entitled to the protection of their statutory and legal rights as guaranteed under Constitution of India, petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent No.4 while petitioners 2&3 are parents of petitioner No.1 whereas petitioners 4&5 are sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1;

(ii) that petitioner No.1 & respondent No.4 got married to each other on 18-02-1999 at Jammu as per Hindu Rights & Rituals with dowry less marriage, out of the said wedlock two (2) children (one daughter & one son) were born to petitioner No.1 & respondent No.4 on 22-06- 2000 & 17-09-2001, respondent No.4 had been residing with petitioner No.1 since their marriage but on 19-06-2020 respondent No.4 left the company of petitioner No.1 from shared matrimonial house hold without any rhyme and reason whereby petitioner No.1 has been meted out with cruelty at the hands of his wife respondent no.4 in the form of mental cruelty as well as physical torture, petitioner No.1 has been beaten time and again by his wife, while in his company petitioner No.1 has been told specifically by his wife respondent No 4 of her extra marital affairs with various peoples as such petitioner No.1 is aware of sexual relations of respondent No.4 with unknown persons;

(iii) that petitioner No.1 with other petitioners tried their level best to reconcile issues between petitioner No.1 & respondent No.4 and it is only when all the efforts of reconciliation failed, petitioner No.1 informed his wife (respondent No.4) of his desire to part ways with her, however, respondent No.4 instead of settling the issue amicably started verbally abusing petitioner No.1 in the morning of 19-06- 2020, and in the melee respondent No.4 packed her bags with all her belongings including jewelry and clothes and left the shared matrimonial house for her parental house specifically threatening that petitioner No.1 and other petitioners would be roped in false and frivolous criminal matters as the Hindu matrimonial laws are towards the women;

(iv) that on 19-02-2021 respondent No.4 approached the court of Ld.

Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu with an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.pc seeking registration of FIR against the petitioners, the said application is false and frivolous where the petitioners have been roped in only to threaten and coerce them not to proceeded against respondent No.4 in the courts of law, Ld. Court of Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu acting in a mechanical manner without application of mind passed an order dated 19-02-2021 directing SHO Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu to register FIR against petitioners and investigate the matter u/s 156(3) of Cr.pc which shows that only vague allegations

of dowry and cruel treatment are made against petitioners, moreso, offences alleged in the complaint made by respondent No.4 u/ss 498- A/323/405/506 IPC r/w sections 66(e), 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act 2000 are not made out against petitioners;

(v) that against the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 u/s 156(3) Cr.pc passed by Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu, the petitioners were under serious apprehension of arrest and moved anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.pc before the court of Pr. Sessions Judge Jammu on 22-02-2021 which was transferred to the court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu who after finding prima-facie case against petitioners granted them interim bail vide order dated 22-02-2021 and called status report from respondent No.3 (Incharge Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu) which was filed on 03- 03-2021 wherein respondent No.3 informed the court that no case was registered against the petitioners, as a consequence, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu vacated interim order passed earlier and disposed the application as premature and directed respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioners and the anticipatory bail application was disposed off on 03-03-2021.

(vi) that respondent No.3/SHO Incharge Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu contrary to the status report submitted by it before 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu, registered FIR against the petitioners bearing FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 whereby again the petitioners got serious apprehension of their arrest moved anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.pc before Pr. Sessions Judge Jammu on 24-04-2021 for offences u/ss 498-A/323/405/506 IPC r/w sections 66(e), 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act 2000, the said application was further transferred to 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu who vide his order dated 24-04-2021 granted interim bail to the petitioners;

(vii) that the petitioners have clear criminal antecedents, are law abiding citizens, have deep roots in the society, the accusations leveled in the complaint filed by respondent No.4 have been made with the object of injury or humiliating the petitioners, the impugned order dated 19- 02-2021 passed by Special Railway Magistrate Sub- Judge Jammu is in utter violations of settled principle of law as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs State of U.P. and Others (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear, that the Magistrate dealing with complaint/application u/s 156(3) Cr.pc in required to ensure that such complaint is supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant and is further required to ensure that such complaint u/s 154(1) & 154(3) of Cr.pc have already been made by the applicant, however, in the present case the order of Ld. Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu dated 19-02-2021 substantiate the fact that no formal application u/s 154(1) & 154(3) Cr.pc were ever moved by respondent No.4 as such impugned order dated 19-02-2021 and consequent FIR are legally unsustainable and deserves to be quashed, the impugned FIR shows that only vague allegations have been made against the petitioners which pertain to demand of dowry by petitioner Nos. 1,2,3 from respondent No.4 prior to 18-02-1999 when petitioner No.1 & respondent No.4 solemnized their marriage,

there are general allegations of intermittent dowry demand and cruelty to respondent No.4, how the cruelty was meted out to respondent No.4 is not coming forth, the allegations apart from being vague, suffer with unexplainable delay and latches, respondent No.4 has instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioners with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against petitioners;

(viii) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in it's Constitutional Bench Judgment titled Lalita Kumari V/s Govt. Of U.P. & Ors (2014) 2 SCC 1, has settled the law in regard to registration of FIR for cognizable offences and has specifically held, that in matrimonial cases etc. the preliminary enquiry is required to be conducted, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 have been married since 18-02- 1999, the FIR No. 15/2021 has been registered on 19-02-2021 after a long-long delay, in the present case no such preliminary enquiry has been done by the Magistrate in its order registering the FIR, the impugned order therefore directing registration of FIR is without application of mind and is legally unsustainable, perusal of FIR indicates that offences mentioned in the complaint are not made out, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law, the impugned order for registration of FIR & the FIR itself registered on false and frivolous reasons requires to be quashed;

2. Respondents 1,2,3 have filed their objections/status report wherein they have specifically contended, that the instant case was registered on 22-04-2021 on receiving a written complaint from complainant Miss Pooja Khanna W/O Anil Khanna D/O Lt. Som Parkash R/O H. No. 159 Sec. 1, Sanjay Nagar, Jammu consisting of 11 pages duly endorsed by Ld. Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu, during the course of investigation 1/0 prepared the site plan of place of occurrence and recorded the statement of complainant as well as other witnesses U/S 161 Cr.PC, the most serious aspect of this case is that accused/petitioner No.1 Anil Khanna has uploaded a blue film/porn video and blamed the complainant for the same, accused Anil Khanna saved the video clip in a pen drive and forwarded it to his relatives just in order to blame the complainant and threatened her to leave the matrimonial house, the pen drive containing the blue film was produced before the police by petitioner/ accused Anil Khanna and threatened the complainant for divorce, accused Anil Khanna has circulated porn clip and few nude images of the complainant lady alleging the lady in such video and images, accused has committed assassination and deformation of the complainant besides heinous offences, the pen drive was seized in the case and was sent to CFSL Hyderabad for clarification but in the meantime Hon'ble High Court Jammu vide No. CRM (M No. 249/2021 dated 24.05.2021 has stayed the investigation of the case. It is contended that, the present case being a serious case of its nature is required

to be dismissed and investigation is required to be permitted to be conducted, that the Supreme Court has held that, the power under 482 Cr.PC should not be excised in a routine and casual manner, however, in such a case where the honor, dignity and self respect of the lady is involved which has been tarnished by her own husband, the law should be permitted to take her own course and investigation be permitted to be completed in this matter. Lastly, it has been contended, that the present petition u/s 482 Cr.pc is not maintainable as it involves factual dispute which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in the case and requires full dress trial by the trial court, as the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of investigation is very bleak, and the powers under section 482 Cr.pc are to be exercised very sparingly.

3. Respondent no. 4 by filing objections has opposed the petition contending therein, that the petitioners have concocted a false and frivolous story in the petition just to escape the liability under law for the harassment, physical & mental torture and abuse committed against the respondent no. 4. It is contended, that when the Police of Police Station Women Cell did not register formal FIR against the petitioners, the matter was further forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police Jammu and S.S.P Crime Branch Jammu vide letter dated 16-02-2021, even after that when no action was taken respondent no.4 filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub Judge Jammu titled Pooja Khanna vs. Anil Khanna and others in which the Court of Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub Judge Jammu vide order dated 19.02.2021 directed the SHO Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu to conduct thorough investigation after the registration of FIR, the petitioners just prior to solemnization of marriage openly demanded considerable dowry from the respondent no. 4 and her parents, father of the respondent no. 4 despite having limited financial resources, acceded to the illegal demand of dowry made by the petitioners as was demanded by them just to ensure that the respondent No. 4 should not face any harassment or embarrassment at her matrimonial house at the hands of petitioners, therefore, father of respondent no. 4 had spent more than Rs 6 lakhs on the marriage and also gave gold ornaments weighing 40 tolas valued at Rs. 19.6 Lakhs appox. at present rates as well as clothing and other valuable items as demanded by the petitioners. It is contended, that petitioners having deep roots in the society do not give them

license to subject respondent no. 4 to physical, mental as well as emotional torture, all misadventures were made by the petitioner no. 1 in front of his mother i.e. petitioner no. 2, who instead of stopping the petitioner no. 1 from such acts, used to laugh on the plight of the respondent no.4, even petitioners no.4 and 5 always supported the petitioner no.1 in his misdeeds and overturns against the respondent no.4 because they had connived to influence and execute through the petitioner no.1 the alienation of the respondent no. 4 from the ownership of her matrimonial house situated at H.No.9 Extension-E Bharat Nagar Talab Tillo Jammu and had it registered in the name of petitioner no.4, the consideration was completely funded by petitioner no. 1. and this was done by petitioner no.4 and 5 by brainwashing petitioner no.1 that he is not a state subject holder of the state of J&K and hence, petitioner no.1 should not do registration in the name of respondent no.4, whereas petitioner no.4 married with petitioner no.5 though from Punjab origin, became state subject holder post her marriage. It is further contended, that since June 2020 respondent no.4 has been thrown out of her matrimonial home by petitioner no.1 in the presence of her children and other family members, petitioner no. 1 has openly given threats to the respondent no. 4 to eliminate her if respondent no.4 raises her voice or makes any complaint against him in addition to the physical and mental torture the petitioners subjected respondent no. 4, petitioner no. 1 crossed all the limits of decency and morality when he downloaded some porn clip of and few nude images of some unknown lady and circulated the said porn clip and images amongst the relatives and family members on social media apps alleging that the said lady in the porn clip is respondent no. 4 and rest of the petitioners are also supporting the petitioner no.1 in this vulgar act, the height of the immorality and indecency of the petitioner no.1 can be judged from the fact that the respondent no. 1 has shown the said clip and nude images to the children of the respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 has been treated with utmost cruelty not only by petitioner no. 1 but also by petitioner no 2, 3, 4, 5, respondent no. 4 was abused, insulted and beaten on various occasions in presence of relatives and friends both at the residence and even in public, respondent no. 4 was even denied regular food and other necessities of life and was made to live a life which was worse than a slave, petitioners 4 & 5 have also played a very active role in instigating the petitioner no. 1 to 3 to torture the respondent no.4,. petitioner no. 1 often level accusations on character of the respondent no. 4 and in fit of anger thrash her,

the abrasions and scars of such beating and thrashing were visible all over the body of respondent no. 4 is a matter of record. It is moreso, contended, that Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pardesh & Ors 2013 has held, that in matrimonial/family disputes cases, preliminary inquiry may be made before registration of FIR, the Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu registered the FIR on 22/04/2021, as such, no FIR was registered against the petitioners at the time of filing bail application dated 22.02.2021 by the petitioners, right from the end of 2009 till middle of 2013 respondent no.4 was not permitted by the petitioner no.l to visit her parents who lived just 10 to 12 kms away from the matrimonial home of respondent no. 4, petitioner no.1 had also beaten the respondent no.4 on many occasions in front of her parents also, petitioner no. l instead of treating and respecting the respondent no.4 as his wife always treated her as a bonded labourer and in fact petitioner no.1 unlawfully confined respondent no.4 at her matrimonial home with no permission to go to her parental home to meet her parents and relatives, respondent no.4 in order to save her marriage and matrimonial relationship from further deteriorating always complied with all unlawful demands of petitioner no.1, from Feb. 2015 to June 2015 respondent no.4 was subjected to choicest abuses, physical beating, thrashings, insults and various kinds of incidents of domestic violence, as and when respondent no. 4 suffer from any medical ailment, respondent no.4 was not taken care of by the petitioner no.1 nor she was ever taken to the doctor nor any treatment was' provided to her, petitioner no. 1 was habitual of hitting the respondent no.4 with his legs and fist and used to push the respondent no.4 on the hard surface, all these incidents had happened in front of petitioner no.2 who instead of stopping the petitioner no.1 from such acts, used to laugh on the plight of the respondent no.4, even the petitioner no. 4 and 5 always supported the petitioner no.1 in his misdeeds and overturns against the respondent no.4. Lastly, it is contended, that from the sequence of events and facts it shows that the petitioners have committed criminal offences punishable under sections 498- A, 323, 405, 506 IPC and offences punishable under section 66(E), 67 & 67-A of Information Technology Act 2000, petitioners have not only completely ruined the life of the respondent no. 4 but also divested her of her personal belongings and valuables, respondent no. 4 has been deserted willfully by the petitioner no.1 after taking all the valuables and belongings, hence the FIR against the petitioners.

4. Sh. K.S. Johal Ld. Counsel for petitioners to support the averments of the petition, has vehemently articulated arguments, that the order impugned are not legally substantial in law and the entire investigation should be quashed as factually the contents of the FIR are incorrect, no ingredients of offences u/ss 498-A/323/405/506 IPC r/w sections 66(E), 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act 2000 are allegedly made out on the face of record, there is no such treatment of cruelty meted out to respondent No.4 that she was both mentally and physically tortured, in application u/s 498-A Cr.pc there has to be such conduct on the part of the petitioners which could be said to be amounting to cruelty, the cruelty should be of such an extreme nature whereby respondent No.4 could have been coerced to meet any unlawful demand for any property of valuable security, such conduct on the part of petitioners is missing and there is no allegations that respondent No.4 was driven to commit suicide or any injury was caused to her and in absence thereof, no case is made out against petitioners. It is argued, that in matrimonial disputes casual reference to family members of the husband in FIR as co-accused don't make a prima-facie case against petitioners, absence of specific allegations leads to quashing of the proceedings, petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.4 on 18-02-1999 whereas FIR No. 15/2021 has been lodged on 22-04-2021 after more than 20 years of marriage and even when respondent No.4 left the company of her husband on 19-06-2020 without any rhyme and reason the FIR has been lodged on 22-04-2021 after a delay of about 10 months, such extra ordinary delay in lodging FIR raises grave doubt about the genuineness/creditworthiness of the allegations made by respondent No.4 against the petitioners in the FIR, therefore, lodging of FIR is an abuse of process of law which deserves to be quashed. It is vehemently argued, that as per Lalita Kumari's judgment (AIR 2014 SC 187) a preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR is mandatory in matrimonial disputes, such recourse has not been adopted by respondent No.4, the application u/s 156(3) Cr.pc for registration of FIR is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant that prior applications u/s 154(1) & 154(3) have been filed before taking recourse to Section 156(3), direction for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.pc is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate, in the case in hand, Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu while ordering registration of FIR No.15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 against petitioners has not

applied his mind, as from the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 it is not forth coming that application under section 156(3) of Cr.pc was ever accompanied by affidavit duly sworn by complainant/respondent No.4 which speaks volumes about the non-application of judicial mind of the Magistrate, the impugned order has been passed by the Magistrate casually in mechanical manner, as such, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in, (i) AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (State of Haryana and others, Appellants versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, Respondents), (ii) (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 466 (SHAKSON BELTHISSOR... Appellant versus STATE OF KERALA..Respondents), (iii) (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 (Geeta Mehotra and another Appellants versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER..Respondents), (iv) 2012 Supreme (SC) 933 (Chandralekha & Others versus State of Rajasthan & Another),

(v)AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187 ( Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & Ors), (vi) AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1758 ( Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others) & (vii) 2015(6) Supreme Court Cases 439 (RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED..... Appellant Versus STATE OF GUJARAT... Respondent).

5. Ms. Monika Kohli Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, supporting the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 rendered by Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu ordering registration of FIR No.15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 u/s 156(3) of Cr.pc has vehemently articulated arguments, that at the stage of registering a crime on the basis of information disclosing cognizable offence u/s 154(1) of the Cr.pc the concerned police officer cannot embark upon enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable or genuine, and if the information discloses cognizable offence police officer has no option but to register a case. It is argued, that if there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been pleaded before the High court, then the High Court will be justified in refusing to entertain the petition, as in the case in hand petitioners have placed twisted facts before the High Court that the Ld. Magistrate has not followed the mandate of law and in mechanical manner has passed the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 for registration of FIR No. 15/2021 against the petitioners, the High Court would be justified in not entertaining the petition in hand, even in case of vague allegations of

committing the act of cruelty the petitioners will have full opportunity to make the submissions before the trial court, and in that eventuality it would be an abuse of process of law to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.pc for quashing of the FIR and only if the FIR does not disclose commission of offence court would be justified to quash the proceedings. It is further argued, that in the case in hand, the contents of FIR disclose the commission of offences of cruelty, threat to life and offences under Information & Technology Act u/ss 498-A/323/405/506 IPC r/w sections 66(E) 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act 2000 which are prima-facie made out against the petitioners, therefore, this court would not be justified in quashing the proceedings. It is moreso argued, that when a police officer receives information of cognizable offence it is the foremost duty of the police officer to direct registration of FIR u/s 154 of Cr.pc, and only in matrimonial cases etc. if the information received does not disclose cognizable offences but indicates necessity for enquiry, a preliminary enquiry (PE) can be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed, but in the case in hand, contents of FIR disclose the commission of acts of cruelty which is a cognizable offence u/s 498-A IPC and therefore the preliminary enquiry (PE) was not legally required, the Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu only after application of mind has passed directions u/s 156(3) Cr.pc for registration of FIR and therefore, the Ld. Magistrate was right in proceeding u/s 156(3) insisted of postponement of issuance of proceedings u/s 202 as he was given reasons for taking recourse to the proceedings of registration of FIR, moreso, the allegations in the FIR are not vague and there is no delay as such for lodging FIR therefore u/s 482 Cr.pc the proceedings against petitioners cannot be quashed, on the consideration of material on record cognizable offences u/ss 498-A/323/405/506 IPC r/w sections 66(E), 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act 2000 are disclosed against petitioners, therefore, the court will normally not interfere with investigation but will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting material/evidence for proving the offence. It is strenuously argued, that the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency, cannot appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of FIR, and once the court finds that FIR does disclose prima-facie commission of cognizable offence, the court should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law.

Lastly, it has been argued, that the High Court is not required to enter into or consider the merits of the allegations which as such are required to be considered at the time of trial, and when there is serious triable allegations in the complaint, it is improper to quash the FIR in exercise of inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 Cr.pc, as the contents of FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence against petitioners, the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 and FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 needs no interference. To buttress her arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4 has relied upon the rulings reported in, (i) AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (State of Haryana and others, Appellants versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, Respondents), (ii) 1998 CriLJ 554 (Jagdish and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.), (iii) (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 (Geeta Mehotra and another Appellants versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another..Respondents), (iv) AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187 (Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & Ors), (v) (2013) 14 SCC 374 (Chandralekha & Others--Appellants versus State of Rajasthan & Another--Respondents), (vi) 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 5 (Dineshbhai Chandubjai Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.), (vii) Rupali Devi--Appellant versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Respondents, [Cr. Appeal Nos. 619, 620,621,622 & 623 of 2029, Criminal appeal No. 71 of 2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9 April, 2019], (viii) Kaptan Singh Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh {judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13 August, 2021} & (ix) M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.--Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others--Respondents, {decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal appeal No. 330 of 2021 on 13 April, 2021}.

6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Ld. AAG for respondents. 1,2,3 & Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material aspects involved in the case and have gone through the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioners. In light of the arguments canvassed by Ld. Counsel for the parties, the moot point for determination before this court is, "what could be the board principles to be followed by the High Court while quashing FIR"?

7. To settle the legal controversy, I would like to appreciate the ratios of the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. Firstly, I would like to refer the ratios of the decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioners.

In AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (State of Haryana and others, Appellants versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, Respondents) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that when the matter relates to serious disputed facts yet to be investigated, the stage is premature for quashing of investigation and FIR.

In (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 466 (SHAKSON BELTHISSOR...Appellant versus STATE OF KERALA..Respondents) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that if the ingredients of cruelty u/s 498-A IPC are not mentioned in the FIR or in the charge sheet, no case is made out and the appropriate recourse would be to quash the FIR.

In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 (Geeta Mehotra and another Appellants versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER..Respondents) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that where there is a casual reference to the family members of the husband in the FIR as co-accused in absence of any specific allegations, prima-facie no case can be made out against accused and the proceedings can be quashed u/s 482 Cr.pc.

In 2012 Supreme (SC) 933 (Chandralekha & Others versus State of Rajasthan & Another) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raise grave doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations made by the respondents and FIR would be abuse of process of law.

In AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187 (Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & Ors) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle of law that registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.pc is mandatory and leaves no discretion in police officer to hold preliminary enquiry before FIR and only in matrimonial disputes/family disputes etc, the primarily enquiry is to be conducted to ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence or not.

In AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1758 (Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that for direction of investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.pc it warrants application of judicial mind by the Magistrate and the application u/s 156(3) is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by

applicant that he/she has filed prior applications u/s 154(1) & 154(3) before filing application u/s 156(3) Cr.pc.

In 2015(6) Supreme Court Cases 439 (RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED.....Appellant Versus STATE OF GUJARAT... Respondent) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that directions for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.pc is to be issued only after application of mind of the Magistrate.

8. Now, I would like to refer the rulings relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4 to find out, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 and registration of FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 are legally sustainable or not.

In AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (State of Haryana and others, Appellants versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, Respondents) also relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that when the matter relates to serious disputed facts yet to be investigated, stage is premature for quashing of investigation and FIR.

In 1998 CriLJ 554 (Jagdish and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held, "that it is not necessary that the husband or his relatives must be present at the time when the house wife is subjected to cruelty. If their act or conduct, omission or commission is of such a nature which results in mental and physical harassment it will amount to an act of cruelty to a woman and it is immaterial that the woman is living at that relevant time at her matrimonial home or at her parent's house. The offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while, the woman is living at her parent's house, the offence is triable by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed at matrimonial home or the parents house".

In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 (Geeta Mehotra and another Appellants versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another..Respondents) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that if the FIR does not disclose commission of offence court would be justified in quashing proceedings and preventing abuse of process of law.

In AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187 (Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & Ors) also relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court

has laid down the principle of law that registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.pc is mandatory and leaves no discretion in police officer to hold preliminary enquiry before FIR and only in matrimonial disputes/family disputes etc, the primarily enquiry is to be conducted to ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence or not.

In (2013) 14 SCC 374 (Chandralekha & Others--Appellants versus State of Rajasthan & Another--Respondents) also relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that since the allegations were extremely general in nature as no specific role was attributed to each appellants, there was no explanation why FIR was lodged after 6 years from the date whether victim left the matrimonial house it makes a serious doubt and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

In 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 5 (Dineshbhai Chandubjai Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences on the contents of FIR, in paras 29,30,31&32 held as under:-

(29) In doing so, the High Court, in our view, virtually decided all the issues arising out of the case like an investigating authority or/and appellate authority decides, by little realizing that it was exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at this stage.

(30) The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possess to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.

(31) At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the Complainants and visa-se-versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge

sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

(32) In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.

In Rupali Devi--Appellant versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Respondents, [Cr. Appeal Nos. 619, 620,621,622 & 623 of 2029, Criminal appeal No. 71 of 2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9 April, 2019] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision on April 9, 2019 held, that the courts at the place where a wife taking shelter after leaving or driven away from matrimonial house on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or relatives also has jurisdiction to entertain complaint alleging commission of offences u/ss 498-A of IPC.

In Kaptan Singh Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh {judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13 August, 2021} relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the High Court failed to appreciate & consider that there are contentious issues which can be considered at trial, the High Court cannot enter into merits of the allegations u/s 482 Cr.pc and when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint, it is improper to quash FIR, in paras 6.1,6.2 & 6.3 of the judgment at page 4 held as under:-

6.1 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that there are contentious issues which can be considered only at the time of trial.

6.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has entered into the merits of the allegations at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisions while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to enter into and/or consider the merits of the allegations in detail, which as such are required to be considered at the time of trial. Heavy reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191; CBI vs. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686; Telangana vs.

Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87; XYZ vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337.

6.3 It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of XYZ (Supra) when there are serious triable allegations in complaint it is improper to quash the FIR in exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.--Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others--Respondents, {decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal appeal No. 330 of 2021 on 13 April 2021} relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the High Court was not justified in passing order/direction that no coerce measures be adopted against petitioner, in paras 6&7 of the judgment held as under:-

6. The principal issue which arises is when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of no coercive steps and/or not to arrest the accused either pending investigation by the police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court?

7. While considering the aforesaid issue, law on the exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR/complaint and the parameters for exercise of such powers and scope and ambit of the power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are required to be referred to as the very parameters which are required to be applied while quashing the FIR will also be applicable while granting interim stay/protection.

7.1 The first case on the point which is required to be noticed is the decision of this Court in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra).

While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier Code (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard to the matters

specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing this, thereafter this Court then carved out some exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.

Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561- A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence

the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.

7.2 In the case of Kurukshetra University (supra), this Court observed and held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice; that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the case before this Court, the High Court quashed the first information report filed by the Kurukshetra University through Warden and that too without issuing notice to the University, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court noticed and observed that the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR when the police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceedings were at all pending before any Court in pursuance of the FIR.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in it's recent judgment [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110] titled Veena Mittal.. Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. Respondent(s) [Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5732 of 2019], while observing that if the FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence the criminal proceedings can be quashed, in para 6 of the judgment held as under:-

(6) In this backdrop, the finding of the High Court to the effect that there is no specific allegation against the second and third respondents or that, as the mother and sister of the bridegroom, they would not be either beneficiaries or have a direct link with the perpetrators of the crime is not based on cogent material or a reading of the FIR. It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. The parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 482 have been reiterated in a consistent line of authorities and, at this stage, it may be material to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court

dated 15 April 2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No 27511 of 2018.

10.By the ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the parties, the legal position is no longer res-integra, that the broad principles for quashing of FIR have been enunciated to the extent, "that while exercising the powers under Sec. 482 Cr.pc the High Court is not required to enter into or consider the merits of the allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial; when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint it is improper to quash FIR; High Court under inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.pc (561-A, Cr.pc) would not embark upon the enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not; the High Court would not be justified in quashing FIR when the police had not even commenced the investigation into the complaint; at the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings/FIR u/s 482 of the Cr.pc the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand; and it is only if on the face of allegation no offence as alleged is made out, the court would be justified in quashing FIR/criminal proceedings in exercising it's jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.pc".

11.Applying the ratios of judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for the parties to the facts of the case in hand, it is apt to reiterate here, that the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 passed by the court of Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge Jammu in a complaint/application filed by respondent No.4 (applicant) against petitioners (non-applicants/accused) depicts, that respondent No.4 (applicant) had earlier filed application before SHO and SSP concerned who did not act upon her complaint/application, and therefore, respondent No.4 appeared before the Court below for registration of FIR, pursuant to which the Court below vide impugned order dated 19-02-2021 directed respondent No.3 SHO Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu to register the FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22-04-2021 against petitioners/accused. Respondent No.4 (applicant) while seeking directions from the court below u/s 156(3) Cr.pc therefore has complied the judgment of M/S Priyanka Srivastava (AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1785) clearly specifying that respondent No.4 has filed the applications u/s 154(1) & 154(3) of Cr.pc before taking recourse to the provision of section 156(3) Cr.pc. Moreso, the court below while complying the judgment of Lalita Kumari (2014 Supreme Court 187) has directed the registration of FIR which is the mandatory

provision, as no preliminary enquiry was required in the case in hand, as the contents of the complaint clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offence of cruelty u/s 498-A IPC. By the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [(2022 LiveLaw Supreme Court 110) Veena Mittal Vs. State of U.P] law has been well settled, that at the stage when High court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings/FIR u/s 482 Cr.pc, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand, and it is only if on the face of allegations that no offence as alleged has been made out, the court would be justified in quashing the FIR/criminal proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.pc. In the case in hand annexure-II of the petition is copy of FIR dated 22-04-2021 which clearly demonstrates that respondent No.4 was treated with utmost brutality and inhuman behaviour by petitioners/accused, in as much as, petitioners 4&5 sister and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 are alleged to have played a active role in instigating the petitioner No.1 and his parents to torture respondent No.4 (complainant), not only this, the height of immorality and decency of petitioner No.1 (husband of respondent No.4) can be judged from the allegations that petitioner No.1 has shown porn clips and nude images alleging it to be of respondent No.4 to her children, therefore, as per the contents of FIR offences u/ss 498-A, 323, 325, 405, 406,506 IPC r/w Sections 67/67-A of IT Act 2000 have been prima-facie established against petitioners/accused. It is settled law by the judgment of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13-04-2021] that the High Court in exercising it's jurisdiction u/s 561-A (482 Cr.pc) would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not and the High Court would not be justified in quashing FIR disclosing commission of cognizable offence when the police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint. In the case in hand, FIR No. 15/2021 has been lodged on 22-04-2021 against petitioners, but this court vide it's order dated 30-04-2021 in the petition filed by the petitioners has directed respondent No.3 (SHO Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar Jammu) not to proceed with the investigation of the FIR which order is still in continuation till date. The contents of the FIR clearly depict the commission of cognizable offences u/ss 498-A/109 of IPC r/w Sections 67/67-A of IT Act 2000, therefore, this Court at this stage cannot be justified in quashing the impugned order dated 19-02-2021 and FIR No. 15/2021. In view of the foregoing discussion, as a consequence, the petition filed by

petitioners/accused u/s 482 of Cr.pc being legally unsustainable, and utterly misconceived under law, is disallowed, rejected and dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Railway Magistrate Sub- Judge, Jammu in complaint filed by private respondent No. 4 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C whereby FIR No. 15/2021 dated 22.04.2021 has been registered against the petitioners/accused does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety, the same is upheld/confirmed. Since the FIR registered against petitioners/accused is pending for investigation for quite a long time since 30-04-2021, therefore, the stay granted by this court on 30.04.2021 hereby stands vacated. I, therefore, direct the investigating authorities (respondent No.3) to complete the investigation of the case expeditiously without any bias and prejudices strictly in accordance with law. Before parting, I consider it proper to clarify, that this order shall not be construed as having decided any issue on merits either way. The investigating authority would not therefore be influenced in any manner by any of the observation made by the lower Court or by this Court in their respective orders while investigating the matter.

12.Disposed of accordingly.

(Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu:

24.05.2022 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No