Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jagdish Raj vs Respondent(S) on 25 October, 2024
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No.7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 48/2015
IA Nos. 52/2015 & 1/2018
Jagdish Raj .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate
Vs
..... Respondent(s)
State of J&K and anr.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
25.10.2024
1. Investigating Officer, SI Aslam is present along with Case Diary.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No.
171/2013 dated 18.08.2013 registered with Police Station, Samba for
commission of offence under Section 307 RPC at the instance of
respondent No. 2 on the ground that in the records of hospital authorities,
the cause of injury was demonstrated as road traffic accident but brother
of the injured i.e. respondent No. 2 lodged false and frivolous FIR against
the petitioner just to harass him because of old enmity.
3. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that on 18.08.2013 at 1945
hours, the complainant Daljit Singh submitted a written report at Police
Post Supwal to the effect that he is a resident of Village Sunjwan Barian
Tehsil Samba and his real brother, namely, Gurmeet Singh alias Billa was
residing separately but near to his house. On that day at about 1945 hours,
his brother was walking along side National Highway and the
complainant was also walking behind him at some distance. In the
meanwhile, one Kaka S/o Santokh R/o Barian Adda equipped with iron
Darat stopped his brother and attacked him. His brother received injuries
to his head and other parts of the body. His brother fell and on hue and cry
made by them, some people came on spot. Thereafter, the accused fled
from the spot. The accused was having old enmity with the brother of the
complainant, who was admitted in the hospital and was struggling with
his life. This report was entered in the Daily Diary vide DD No. 12 dated
18.08.2013 and extract of the same was sent to Police Station, Samba. On
receipt thereof, FIR No. 171/2013 under Section 307 RPC was registered.
It is further stated that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer
visited the spot and prepared the site plan. The statements of witnesses
under Section 161 and 164-A Cr.P.C. were recorded. The Investigating
Officer arrested the petitioner and also recovered weapon of offence. It is
also stated by the official respondent that statement of the victim could
not be recorded as he was mentally unfit and he was produced before the
Board of Doctors at Psychiatric Disease Hospital, Jammu. The doctors
opined that he is case of post head injury dementia and is not fit for
recording his statement.This Court vide order dated 11.02.2015 directed
that the charge sheet shall not be presented in the FIR impugned in this
petition.
4. Mr. Navyug Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
vehemently argued that it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating
Officer to investigate the cause of injuries suffered by the victim, as in the
records of the hospital authorities the cause of injuries has been
mentioned as road accident. He further submits that fair investigation
demands the consideration of the defence of the accused as well.
5. Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has submitted that after the injured
became mentally fit, his statement was recorded before the Magistrate and
he has categorically deposed in respect of commission of offence by the
petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The sole contention raised by the petitioner is that in the records of the
hospital authorities, the cause of injury has been mentioned as a road
traffic accident and this FIR is nothing but merely an afterthought.
8. A perusal of the CD file reveals that the statement of the victim was
recorded before the Additional Mobile Magistrate, Samba under Section
164 Cr.P.C. and he has categorically deposed that he was inflicted injuries
by the petitioner with Darat. Further, a perusal of the CD file reveals that
the weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement
made by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in the records of the hospital authorities, the cause of
injuries has been reflected as Road Traffic Accident become meaningless
at this stage, more particularly in view of the categoric statement made by
the victim before the learned Magistrate.
9. The law is well settled that while examining the validity of FIR, the
evidence cannot be appreciated. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled, „Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs.
State of Bihar' reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107, in which it has been held
as under: -
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to
appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC")
because whether there are contradictions or/and
inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is
essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and
the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during
trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That
stage is yet to come in this case."
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition, as such, the
same is dismissed. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the
investigation expeditiously as possible and proceed in accordance with the
law. Interim direction stands vacated.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
25.10.2024
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
