Rajesh Kumar vs Union Territory Of Jammu And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2303 j&K

                                                                 102

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023


1.     Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Dev Raj               .....Petitioners/Appellants
       R/o Village Taraf Sanji, Tehsil
       and District Kathua, Age 28
       years.

2.     Dev Raj S/o Sh. Mansa Ram R/o
       Village Taraf Sanji, Tehsil and
       District Kathua, Age 65 years.

3.     Janak Raj S/o Sh. Dev Raj R/o
       Village Taraf Sanji, Tehsil and
       District Kathua, Age 32 years.

4.     Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Dev Raj
       R/o Village Taraf Sanji, Tehsil
       and District Kathua, Age 30
       years.

R.
                        Through: Mr. Parag Sharma, Advocate
                  Vs
1.     Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir                   ..... Respondents
       through Director General of Police.

2.     Station House Officer, Police Station
       Kathua.

3.     State of Punjab through Director
       General of Police, Chandigarh (Punjab).

4.     Station House Officer, Police Station
       Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil and District
       Pathankot (Pubjab).

5.     Prem Nath (Assistant Sub Inspector)
       C/o Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh,
       Tehsil and District Pathankot (Punjab).


                        Through: None
                                      2

                                                            WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                                JUDGMENT (ORAL)

16.10.2023

1) The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 49/2023 dated 10.09.2023

for offences under Sections 332, 353, 186, 379, 342, 148, 149 and 506 of

IPC registered with Police Station, Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil and District

Pathankot Punjab. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon SHO,

Police Station, Kathua to register an FIR pursuant to the direction dated

03.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge),

Kathua on an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. filed by petitioner

No. 2.

2) According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 is doing the business of

transporting building material but the Police of Police Station, Narot Jaimal

Singh, Pathankot (Punjab), which is adjacent to the village of the petitioners

located in District Kathua, threatens the said petitioner of dire consequences

if he does not pay monthly entry fee to them while entering the State of

Punjab. It has been alleged that during the intervening night of 9 th & 10th

September, 2023, the Police personnel from the aforesaid Police Station,

who were heavily drunk, barraged into the house of petitioner No. 2 and they

started using abusive language. It is further alleged that the assailants

misbehaved with the women folk present in the house and they took away

cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the Almirah of petitioner No. 2. The other

family members were also attacked. The neighbours of the petitioners gather

on spot and on spotting them, the assailants, the Police officials of Police

Station, Narot Jaimal Singh fled away, leaving one of their associates

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023

behind. The incident was reported to the Police Post, Nagri Parole, District

Kathua and the Police came on spot and handed over one of the accused

person, who was left behind by his associates, to the Punjab Police.

However, no FIR was lodged by the Police of Police Station, Kathua.

3) It is averred that the petitioner approached the Court of Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Kathua with an application under Section

156(3) Cr. P.C. and a direction was issued by the said Court on 03.10.2023

requiring the Police of Police Station Kathua to register an FIR but no FIR

has been registered so far. It has been submitted that the petitioners have

come to know that impugned FIR stands registered against them with Police

Station, Narot Jaimal Singh and same is based on false and concocted facts.

It has been submitted that even as per the contents of the said FIR, whole of

the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Police Station,

Kathua as the alleged occurrence has taken place in the house of the

petitioners. It is contended that the Police of Police Station, Narot Jaimal

Singh has no jurisdiction to register the impugned FIR.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record

of the case.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that no part

of cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the State of

Punjab, as such, it was not open to the Police of Police Station, Narot Jaimal

Singh to register the impugned FIR. In support of his contention, the learned

counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023

case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others,

2000 (7) SCC 640.

6) In order to determine the merits of the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to refer to the contents of

the impugned FIR.

7) In the FIR, it is alleged that the Police personnel of Police Station,

Narot Jaimal Singh, were present in a village Nakkia (Punjab), where they

received an information that Rakesh Kumar, brother of petitioner Nos. 1, 3

& 4 and son of petitioner No. 2 is indulging in supply of illicit drugs. The

Police got the source information that the afore-named person comes to the

village Ambi Kharkhara (Punjab) every morning and supplies drugs to the

people over there. On receiving this information, the Police personnel

reached village Kharkhara and at about 6.15. AM when Rakesh Kumar @

Commando came over there. He was carrying a plastic can in his hand. He

was confronted by the Police and he disclosed his identity by stating that he

is son of Dev Raj a resident of village Jarai District Kathua. The said person

threw away the plastic can that he was carrying in his right hand and he

pushed ASI, Om Parkash, whereafter he raised his voice and fled away

towards a kacha road. It is alleged that the Police chased Rakesh Kumar and

when they were chasing him, 4/5 persons armed with lathies came towards

the Police party and these persons included the petitioners as well. On seeing

them, Rakesh Kumar stopped and he was caught by the Police. In the

meantime, the associates of Rakesh Kumar launched an attack on the Police

party, as a result of which they suffered injuries. ASI Om Parkash fell down

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023

on the ground, whereas one of the Police personnel was kept locked by the

assailants inside a room. The said person was rescued by ASI, Sohan Lal of

Police Post, Nagri, District Kathua. On the basis of these allegations,

impugned FIR came to be registered.

8) A perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR would reveal that

occurrence has taken place both in State of Punjab and in Union Territory of

Jammu and Kashmir. Rakesh Kumar was spotted by the Police in village

Kharkhara, which is located in State of Punjab. He was carrying a plastic

can, which he threw away, whereafter he fled away from the spot after

pushing aside one of the Police personnel. The Police chased him into the

territory of District Kathua, where the Police personnel were beaten up by

the associates of Rakesh Kumar, which includes the petitioners herein. One

of the Police personnel was wrongfully restrained in a room that is place is

located within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kathua. Thus, it is clear that

some of the events, which constitute the offences alleged in the impugned

FIR have taken place in District Pathankot of State of Punjab, whereas

certain other events have taken place in District Kathua of Union Territory

of J&K. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Police of Police Station, Narot

Jaimal Singh did not have jurisdiction to register the impugned FIR.

9) In the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra

and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all

the events, which formed basis of the FIR that was subject matter of said

petition, had taken place at Bombay. It was in those circumstances that the

Supreme Court held that investigation of the FIR should have been

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023

conducted at Bombay itself, but in the instant case, certainly some of the

events are alleged to have been taken place in District Pathankot (Punjab), as

such, the Punjab Police was well within its jurisdiction to register an FIR in

Police Station, Narot Jaimal Singh.

10) That takes us to the merits of the case. It has been contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that allegation made in the impugned FIR

are false and frivolous, whereas the version of the occurrence given by

petitioner No. 2 in his complaint, lodged before the Judicial Magistrate 1 st

Class (Sub Judge) Kathua is the correct version. The question whether the

allegations made in the impugned FIR are false or whether the same have

any substance can be determined only during the investigation of the case

and not by this Court by holding a mini trial. The allegations made in the

impugned FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences against

the petitioners. The veracity of these allegations would be a subject matter of

investigation. Once the allegations made in the impugned FIR disclose

commission of a cognizable offence, this Court cannot quash the impugned

FIR to scuttle the investigation, which is the statutory duty of the police

authorities.

11) So far as the contention of the petitioners that respondent No. 2, SHO

Police Station, Kathua has not registered the FIR despite the directions of

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Kathua is concerned, in this

regard it is to be noted that there is clear cut direction from the learned

Magistrate asking the Police to register an FIR with regard to the counter

version of the occurrence given by the petitioners. However, the petitioners

WP(Crl.) No. 98/2023

have, without approaching the learned Magistrate by way of an application

seeking implementation of the said order, rushed to this Court and filed the

instant petition. They would be well advised to approach the learned

Magistrate for implementation of his order dated 03.10.2023. If and when

such application is made by the petitioners, this Court is sure that

appropriate orders would be passed by the learned Magistrate.

12) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to

the petitioners to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub

Judge) Kathua with an application seeking implementation of order dated

03.10.2023 passed by the said Magistrate. If and when such an application

is made, the same shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate in accordance

with law.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

Jammu 16.10.2023 Karam Chand/Secy

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