Neelam And Others vs Ut Of J&K And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 599 j&K

                                                                          Sr. No. 03

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU
                          (Through Virtual Mode Srinagar)

                                                      CRM (M) No. 210/2021
                                                      CrlM No. 2063/2022
                                                      CrlM No. 571/2021
                                               Pronounced on : 31.03.2023

Neelam and others                                                   ..... Petitioner(s)

                       Through :- Mr. Ankush K. Kotwal, Advocate.

                  Vs

UT of J&K and another                                             .....Respondent(s)

                       Through :- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.A.G for R-1.
                                  Mr. Vishal Kapoor, Advocate for R-2.

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

1. The petitioners herein seek quashment of FIR No. 0053/2021 registered

with Police Station, Domana for offences under Section

405/403/504/506 IPC on the ground that the FIR is an abuse of process

of law and causing harassment to the petitioners. It is submitted that the

petitioner No.1 who is the wife of respondent No.2 has dispute with

respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class 5-Moga (Punjab). The respondent

No.2 got registered the FIR in question as a counter to the case pending

between the parties before the court at Moga.

2. The petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail in the FIR by the

court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu on 18.03.2021.

The petitioners are resident of Himachal Pradesh.

3. The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent No.2

wherein the respondent has denied that the present case is abuse of

process of law or has been filed as a counter to the complaint filed by

the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2 herein. Infact the

proceedings initiated by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2

is counter blast to the FIR and not vice-versa.

4. Apparently, the court finds no plausible reason to quash the proceedings

on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The only reason given in the

petition is that the FIR is counter blast to the proceedings filed by the

petitioner No.1 under the Domestic Violence Act in the court at Moga.

Though the petitioner has mentioned in the petition that the allegations

mentioned in the FIR are false and frivolous with a motive to harass the

petitioners the court is not required to go into the allegations as levelled

in the petition. Mere filing of cases by the parties against each other

does not mean by itself that the party filing the case later in point of time

shall deem to have filed frivolous case against the party who had earlier

approached the court with certain allegations against the other party.

5. The FIR cannot be quashed on the mere asking of the party unless the

court is prima facie satisfied that the continuance of the proceedings in

the FIR is sheer abuse of process of law.

6. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the FIR is counterblast to

the case filed by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2 the

specific stand of the respondent is that infact the FIR was lodged by the

respondent No.2 prior to filing of the proceedings by the petitioner

under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the court at Moga.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has invited the attention of

the court to para 13 of the present petition wherein the petitioner has

stated that she filed the case against the respondent No.2 in the month of

March 2021 whereas the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and

consequently registration of FIR is prior to the filing of the complaint

under Domestic Violence Act. This fact is otherwise not denied by the

petitioners.

8. The court is of the view that the contents of the petition itself contradict

the stand of the petitioner that the FIR in question of which the

quashment is sought has been filed after the filing of the complaint by

the petitioner No.1 under the Domestic Violence Act. Irrespective of the

fact that the FIR in question is filed before or after the filing of the

complaint under Domestic Violence Act at the court at Moga, there is no

ground to quash the FIR on the ground that in case same is allowed to

remain on board, it shall be sheer abuse of process of law resulting into

injustice to the petitioners.

9. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PUNEET GUPTA) JUDGE Jammu:

31.03.2023 Shammi

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