Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abdul Gani Shah vs State Through Police Station on 28 February, 2024
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 28.02.2024
Case No: CRMC No. 307/2013
IA No. 368/2013
Abdul Gani Shah, aged 70 years,
S/o Wali Mohd. Shah,
R/o Dugga Village Pochhal Tehsil &
Distrcit Kishtwar. .....Petitioner(s)..
Through :- Mr. A.K.Shan, Advocate.
Vs
State through Police Station, Kishtwar. ....Respondent(s)..
Through :- Mr. Mohd. Irfan Inqlabi, GA.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
28.02.2024
1. The petitioner seeks quashment of the charges framed against the
petitioner herein and the criminal proceedings pending in the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Kishtwar as well as the FIR lodged in the matter
on the grounds mentioned in the petition.
2. The respondent has appeared through learned Government Advocate to
contest the petition.
3. The scanned record of the challan is also before the Court.
4. From the record it is made out that the Assistant Commissioner
Revenue, Kishtwar lodged an FIR No. 88/2012 with Police Station,
Kishtwar against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner
had received compensation on the basis of bogus bill by joining hand
with one Jagdish Raj, who initially got the disbursement of
compensation stopped and after few days submitted an Agreement
permitting the release of compensation in favour of the petitioner. The
challan stands filed against the present petition and Jagdish Raj. The
charges stand framed against both of them by the Sessions Court,
Kishtwar on 13.09.2013. It was reported by the complainant that Khasra
No. 4516 measuring 1 kanal 2 marla Gairmumkin Sadak and 4516 min
measuring 1 marla had come under alignment of Kishtwar Synthan road
in village Kishtwar and vide final award issued by Collectorate
ACR/LA/144-49/SQ dated 26.05.2009. Abdul Gani Shah, petitioner
herein, had managed bogus bill after he came to know about the
acquisition proceedings from Som Nath S/o Ram Saran in the year
05.06.2001 after issuance of Section 4 for 17 marlas though the legal
heirs of Som Nath are very much alive and have no knowledge about the
bill. It was further submitted that Jagdish Raj initially got the
disbursement of compensation stopped but after few days of submitting
affidavit giving the impression that matter has been resolved and
compensation be released in favour of Abdul Gani Shah. Jagdish Raj
had filed affidavit also on 22.09.2011. An amount of Rs.3,33,328/- was
obtained by filing false claim on the basis forged document qua Khasra
No. 4516. As per the complainant, on verification of receipt of
complaint, it was found that 17 marlas of land for which Abdul Gani had
staked the claim only for 01 marla had been notified and for another
khasra number it was found that it was gairmumkin sadak though the
impression was given that it belongs to the petitioner. The aforesaid
allegation resulted into filing of FIR and on completion of investigation,
the challan was produced against the petitioner and Jagdish Raj. The
charges can be framed against the petitioner herein under Sections
467/468/420/34 RPC. The co-accused also stands charged for the same
offences.
5. As per the grounds of challenge, it is not mentioned that it is the
petitioner who had forged the bill in question and further that the FSL
report on the basis of bill which is photo copy is not admissible in
evidence and, therefore, no charge of forgery is sustainable against the
petitioner. It is further submitted that investigation did not obtain
signature of petitioner for comparison with the so called admitted
signature of Som Nath on the bill so as to prove that the petitioner infact
forged the signature of Som Nath on the bill. It is further submitted that
the petitioner never induced the Collector to part with the compensation
received by him. It was Collector himself who after satisfying himself
had paid the compensation to the petitioner.
6. Mr. A.K.Shan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued
on the same lines as mentioned in the petition.
7. The order of framing the charge is not detailed but cryptic one. The
argument raised by Mr. Shan in the petition could be raised by him at
the time of framing of charge. The arguments raised in the petition were
infact raised before the trial court at the time of arguments on framing of
charge is not known to this court nor the order dated 13.09.2013
whereby the charges were framed against the accused reflect the
arguments that may have been raised by the petitioner herein at that
time.
8. The petitioner has referred to certain judgments and the observations
made therein which are infact on the basis of the final judgments passed
by the trial court. The same do not help the petitioner at this stage.
9. The Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings on the basis of the
arguments raised herein. As the order of framing the charge does not
reflect the arguments that may have been raised by the petitioner at the
time of framing of charge, the trial court shall hear the petitioner herein,
accused in the challan, again on framing of charge and pass fresh order.
10. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the arguments before the trial court
which may be available to him in the challan. The trial court shall pass
the order uninfluenced by its earlier order whereby the charge was
framed against the petitioner herein.
11. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed in the
challan.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
(PUNEET GUPTA)
JUDGE
Jammu:
28.02.2024
Pawan Chopra
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No
