Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Akaram vs Tariq Shaheen on 18 October, 2023
Serial No. 102
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- CRM(M) No. 897/2023
CrlM No. 1750/2023
1. Mohd. Akaram, Age 75 years.
2. Mohd. Haneif, Age 72 years.
3. Mohd Iqbal, Age 65 years.
4. Mohd Kabir, Age 62 years
All sons of Mohd Hussain
5. Shehnaz Akhter, Age 55 years
W/o Mohd Akram.
6. Arman Ali, Age 21 years.
7. Mozam Ali, Age 19 years.
Sons of Mohd Akram
8. Naseem Akhter, Age 56 years.
W/o Mohd Kabir.
9. Mehtab, Age 22 years.
10. Azhar, Age 16 years (Minor) through his father petitioner
No. 4 Mohd Kabir.
11. Nasir Kabir, Age 27 years.
Sons of Mohd Kabir.
12. Farhana Akhter, Age 26 years.
13. Rafia Akhter, Age 22 years.
Daughters of Mohd Kabir.
14. Tahir Sultan, Age 29 years.
15. Waseem Sajad, Age 29 years
Sons of Mohd Hanief
16. Muzaffar Iqbal, Age 40 years
S/o Mohd Iqbal.
17. Mohd Akram, Age 61 years.
18. Mohd Sadiq, Age 50 years.
19. Mohd Rashid, Age 45 years.
20. Mohd Bashir, Age 42 years
Sons of Fazal Hussain.
21. Mohd Amin, Age 63 years.
2 CRM(M) No. 897/2023
CrlM No. 1750/2023
22. Mohd Khalil, Age 55 years.
Sons of Mohd Alam.
23. Mohd Irfan, Age 17 years
S/o Muzaffar Iqbal
Through his father petitioner No. 16 Muzaffar Iqbal.
24. Abdul Hamid Naik, Age 60 years
S/o Fateh Mohd.
25. Imran Ahmed, Age 22 years
S/o Abdul Hamid Naik
All residents of Bada Kana,
Tehsil Darhal District Rajouri
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Arshid Pervaiz Malik, Advocate.
Vs
Tariq Shaheen
S/o Mohd Arif
R/o Bada Kana,
Tehsil Darhal District
Rajouri.
..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
(18.10.2023)
(ORAL)
01. In the instant petition, the petitioners have invoked
inherent power of this Court enshrined in section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashment of the complaint titled as "Tariq
Shaheen Vs Mohd Akram and Ors." (for short 'the
impugned complaint') pending before the court of Judicial
CrlM No. 1750/2023
Magistrate 1st Class, Thannamandi (for short 'the court
below') as also order dated 15.05.2023, passed therein in
(for short 'the impugned order').
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
02. Perusal of the complaint would reveal that the
complainant-respondent herein has alleged that accused
persons (petitioners herein) in a land dispute on
25.02.2022 when the complainant along with his relatives
were identifying the said land through Naib-Tehsildar and
other officials of the Revenue Department who has come for
demarcation of the same, the accused persons (petitioners
herein) attacked the complainant and his relatives with
lathis/sticks and pelted stones upon them resulting into
initiation of proceedings by Tehsildar, Thannamandi on
16.03.2023 against the petitioner herein on which SHO
Police Station, Thannamandi did not take any action as one
of the accused persons has been a retired Police personal
having good relations with the Police and that on
07.05.2023 again the accused persons (petitioners herein)
attacked the complainant when he had started to carve out
a road on his land with Tractor and gave a severe beating to
the complainant and his relatives, pelted stones on them
wrongfully restrained them and extended threats to their
CrlM No. 1750/2023
person and property and were saved because of the
intervention of the respectables of the area including the
Panch and Sarpanch.
03. Perusal of the record reveals that the Magistrate upon
entertaining the impugned complaint and recorded the
statements of the complainant and his witness and
consequently, after drawing satisfaction thereto passed
impugned order dated 05.05.2023.
04. Law is settled that inherent power vested in this Cout
under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with great
caution keeping in mind that the Court while exercising
such power does not function as an appellate or revisional
court suggesting, thus, that the power has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great care and caution.
It is equally settled law that the exercise of inherent
power enshrined in section 482 Cr.P.C at the initial stage of
a prosecution is forbidden if the same is sought to be
invoked to scuttle the prosecution at this threshold.
A reference in regard to above to the judgment of
the Apex Court passed in the case titled as "Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and
Ors." reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, would be
relevant herein.
CrlM No. 1750/2023
05. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting
back to the case in hand, the petitioners admittedly being
accused persons in the impugned complaint have appeared
before the trial court as is stated by the counsel for the
petitioners and have now thrown challenge to the said
complaint as also the impugned order on the ground that
the complainant-respondent herein has given the colour of
a criminal case to otherwise a civil dispute while raising
disputed questions of facts.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
in particular the contentions raised in the petition, it is
manifest that the inherent power is being invoked by the
petitioners herein to scuttle the criminal prosecution at its
initial stage. The exercise of inherent power, thus, in view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances is not warranted.
07. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with cost of
₹ 1000/- to be deposited in Litigants' Welfare Fund by the
petitioners within a week's time.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.10.2023
Bunty
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
