The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently comprising of a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal remarked that the court will not entertain frivolous or vague complaints that have been filed maliciously with the motive for vengeance and they will be quashed. (Subash Chander & others v Gian Chand )
Facts of the case
The respondent, Gian Chand filed a criminal complaint against Subash Chander and the other petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code for the offences of rioting, criminal trespass, wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation respectively.
The present petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint filed by the respondent. The petitioners alleged that the respondent and his son, who were neighbours of the petitioners, had badly beaten up the petitioner no. 2 on the 8th of April 2014 over some dispute. As a result of this, petitioner no. 2 lodged an FIR against the respondent and his son on 17th July 2014. Later on when the respondent’s son wished to begin a new job where he had to submit a character certificate, the respondent approached the petitioners explaining the situation and requesting for a compromise so that the FIR could be withdrawn.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds those have been taken in the petition and the respondent though stands served and counsel on his behalf has filed the power of attorney but has not chosen to appear before the Court. As the matter has been pending since 2015, as such, the same cannot be allowed to remain pending like this.
It was alleged that the petitioners had refused the respondent’s advances and that the complaint filed by the respondent was false, fabricated and made only to extract revenge on the petitioners for not withdrawing the FIR.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench noted, "A perusal of the complaint reveals that in para 3 of the complaint it has been stated by the respondent that the accused are having their land adjacent to the land of the complainant/respondent herein and on 04.07.2015 at about 5 PM, the accused persons in connivance with each other while ploughing their land has forcibly broken the boundary of the land of the respondent with their tractor while ploughing the land and have entered the land of the respondent and destroyed the chara crop of the respondent.
Further in para 4 of the complaint, it has been stated that the respondent asked the accused persons as to why they have broken the boundary of the his land and forcibly entered and ploughed the land of the respondent, the accused started abusing the respondent and same was objected by the respondent but the accused persons did not allow the respondent to proceed ahead and accused persons 1 and 2 caught hold of the respondent from his neck and started slapping the respondent and other accused persons also caught hold of the respondent and abused with filthy language in furtherance of their common intention."
The court noted that no evidence or additional information was submitted by the respondents and out of the five people mentioned in the complaint; it was never mentioned who was allegedly ploughing the field, who allegedly broke the boundary wall and who had allegedly abused and assaulted the respondents.
The bench referred to the case of State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], where the Supreme Court had held that proceedings that were maliciously instituted with a motive of vengeance would be quashed by the Court.
The bench quashing the complainant remarked, “The case of the petitioners squarely fall in the category of cases mentioned at serial No. 7 of the judgment Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) as this Court is of the considered view that a false and frivolous vague complaint has been filed by the respondent just to wreck vengeance with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners who figure as witnesses in the challan pending against them, as such, the impugned complaint is required to be quashed.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : twitter.com
