Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal vs Union Territory Of Jammu And on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 55/2021(O&M)
Reserved on 22.04.2024
Pronounced on 01.05.2024
1. Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
S/o. Late Shri Vasdev Singh
Jamwal R/o. 19-Exchange
Road, Jammu, at present,
Pakhian, Mishriwala, Jammu,
aged 60 years
2. Kuljeet Singh S/o Late Shri
Rashpal Singh R/o. Shama
Chak, Jammu, aged 53 years
3. Varindha Jamwal W/o. Shri
Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal,
R/o. 19-Exchange Road,
Jammu, at present Pakhian,
Mishriwala, Jammu, aged 55
years.
Through: Mr. Dinesh Singh Chouhan, Advocate
Ms. Damini Chouhan, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu and ..... Respondent(s)
Kashmir through its
Commissioner/Secretary to
Government, Home Department,
J&K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu
2. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jammu
3. Station House Officer, Police
Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH
Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA
OSWAL, for R 1
JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners, through the medium of this petition, have sought
quashing of FIR bearing No. 337/2020 dated 07.12.2020 registered with
Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu for offences under sections 341, 323,
504 and 506 IPC at the instance of the complainant, Surinder Singh, who
has not been arrayed as respondent in this petition.
2. It is stated that the petitioners had gone to Lemon Tree Hotel, near
Railway Station, Jammu to attend marriage anniversary ceremony on
06.12.2020. The petitioner No. 1 had heated arguments with his brother,
namely, Brij Raj Singh Jamwal, who had come with pre-determined mind
but he went away after intervention of the petitioner No. 2. After the
petitioners finished their dinner and were about to leave the venue, the
accused persons, as mentioned in FIR bearing No. 335 registered under
Sections 341,323,504 and 506 IPC dated 06.12.2020, attacked the
petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with an iron buckle of the belt and with fists and
kicks, resulting into serious injuries. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 cried for
help and were saved by the guests, who were present in the function. The
accused persons were arrested by the Police Personnel standing outside
the Lemon Tree Hospital when they tried to escape. After watching
CCTV footages of Lemon Tree Hotel, the Police of Police Station, Bahu
Fort, Jammu registered FIR bearing No. 0335 dated 06.12.2020 at 23:15
hours against the accused persons, namely, Gourish Jamwal S/o. Brij Raj
Singh, Dimple W/o Brij Raj Singh, Brij Raj Singh S/o. Vasdev Singh,
Surinder Singh S/o. Balbir Singh and Surjeet Singh S/o. Balbir Singh. The
medical examination of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was conducted at
Government Hospital, Sarwal. It is urged that as a counter claim to the
FIR No. 0335 (supra) registered against the aforementioned accused
persons, accused-Surinder Singh managed to get the impugned FIR
registered on same set of allegations and incident.
3. The petitioners have impugned the FIR bearing No. 337 dated 07.12.2020
for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC registered with
Police Station, Bahu Fort, on the grounds that the same could not have
been registered in respect of same incident, more particularly when FIR in
respect of same incident was already registered by the concerned Police
Station. It is also urged that the offences as mentioned in the impugned
FIR are not made out against the petitioners.
4. The respondents have filed the objections but in respect of some other
FIR. However, the Investigating Officer has produced the Case Diary for
the perusal of the Court.
5. Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
argued that the second FIR could not have been registered against the
petitioners, particularly when in respect of same occurrence, FIR stood
already lodged by the petitioner No. 2.
6. Per contra, Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy.AG has vehemently argued that
lodging of counter FIR in respect of same incident is permissible and one
of the accused in first FIR, namely, Surinder Singh, who happens to be the
complainant in the FIR impugned, was also injured in the incident, which
is duly substantiated by the opinion of the Medical Officer.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. The record depicts that initially an FIR bearing No. 335/2020 was
registered on 06.12.2020 at 23.15 hours at the instance of petitioner No. 2
against Gourish Jamwal, Dimple, Brij Raj Singh, Surinder Singh and
Surjeet Singh for offences under sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The
said FIR was registered in respect of occurrence that took place at 21:45
hours on 06.12.2020 near Lemon Tree Hotel near Railway Station,
Jammu. Thereafter, on 07.12.2020 another FIR in respect of same
occurrence was got registered by Surinder Singh S/o. Balbir Singh against
the petitioners, which has been impugned in the present petition. Needless
to mention here that the complainant in the impugned FIR also figures as
accused in first FIR bearing No. 335/2020. In the FIR impugned before
this Court, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are that
petitioner No. 1 was having property dispute with Brij Raj Singh. The
complainant-Surinder Singh used to take care of some agriculture land
belonging to Brij Raj Singh, due to which, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were
having enmity with him. During the party at Hotel Lemon Tree at Trikuta
Nagar, Kuljit Singh, Brij Bhushan Singh and his wife Varinda Jamwal
stopped his way and attacked him and they also hit his mother Sudesh
Kumari.
9. This Court has perused the Case Diary and it is found that the
complainant-Surinder Singh has suffered injuries as per the certificate
issued by the Medical Officer concerned. The statement of the
complainant-Surinder Singh has also been recorded and he has stated that
he was assaulted by the petitioners. In view of the above, it cannot be
stated that no offence is made out against the petitioners, which may
warrant interference by this Court.
10. So far as the contention of the petitioners that no second FIR could have
been registered in respect of the same occurrence is concerned, the same
is misconceived, as there are different versions in respect of the same
incident by the two rival parties. The registration of cross FIRs in respect
of the same incident is permissible as there may be two different versions
of the rival parties against each other in respect of same incident.
investigated. In Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P., (2013) 5 SCC 148,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that
the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one
and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been
given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a
counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable
offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the
same complainant and others against the same accused
subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code,
for an investigation in that regard would have already
commenced and allowing registration of further complaint
would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in
the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-
Judge Bench in Upkar Singh [(2004) 13 SCC 292], the
prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused
in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident.
Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take
different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is
permissible."
(emphasis added)
11. In view of what has been said and discussed above, no interference of this
Court is warranted. However, SHO Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu is
directed that both the FIRs be investigated by the same Investigating
Officer, if the charge sheet in FIR No. 335/2020 is not already filed.
12. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
01.05.2024
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
