The petitioner sought quashing of a criminal complaint alleging domestic violence under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The High Court rejected the plea, finding no ground to interfere at this stage as the trial magistrate had not yet completed the Section 202 investigation.
Petition for quashment of the criminal complaint dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
CRMC No. 460/2018
Abdul Rashid Ganie Vs. Mst. Rubeena
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rashid Ali Dar, Judge
Appearance:
For petitioner(s): Mr. M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate For respondent(s):
| i/ | Whether to be reported in | Yes/No |
|---|---|---|
| Press/Media? | ||
| ii/ | Whether to be reported in | Yes/No |
| Digest/Journal? |
CRMC No. 460/2018
Page 1 of 4
satisfied with the petitioner, as such, is subjecting the petitioner to harassment and domestic violence. The fact of the matter according to
petitioner is that he is the victim of the domestic violence and torture. It has been further submitted that no legal action is taken by the petitioner, i.e, husband as it has a potential of creating the future wedge and animosity. The respondent had filed application under Section 488 Cr. PC, which is pending before the Court of 13th FC at Srinagar. She has also filed complaint/application in terms of Section 12 of J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate Srinagar. It is further submitted that the allegations and the assertions which are levelled in Complaint filed under Section 488 Cr. Pc, are repeated in the complaint filed under Domestic Violence Act. As submitted further that the complaint filed under Section 488 Cr. PC, has been compromised on 12.09.2018 and Rs. 3000/- has been fixed for the maintenance of the child. The petitioner has agreed to resume the matrimonial relationship, but, the respondent has shown reluctance. The respondent has yet filed another complaint for the offence punishable under Section 406, 506 and 420 RPC which is also the repetition of the earlier complaint filed under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
(2005) 13 SCC 540 , has sounded a note of caution regarding the power of
CRMC No. 460/2018
Page 2 of 4
High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-A Cr. PC, corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their lordships enunciated that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, being of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material before the Court. While exercising inherent jurisdiction as observed by their lordships, it is not permissible for
the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. It would be none of the duties of the High Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material produced is sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty.
the exception and not a rule. The High Court could not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
CRMC No. 460/2018
Page 3 of 4
of the allegations made in a complaint presented before the learned Criminal Court. The High Court has to be alive to situation that it has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision in exercise of its powers under this Section. The learned trial Magistrate as noted above is yet to find whether the complaint has any merit and if it warrants the issuance of process against the petitioner herein. For ascertaining the truthfulness or otherwise of, he directed the investigation to be made as referred supra by the concerned police station. The facts put forth by the petitioner are half backed and it would be premature at this stage to frame an opinion about nature of the allegations, consequent upon which the inherent powers are prayed be exercised.
(Rashid Ali Dar) Judge
Srinagar
11.12.2018
“Manzoor”
CRMC No. 460/2018
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint in a domestic dispute where the trial court has not yet collected evidence.
Whether the allegations in the complaint merit an inquiry under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. at the current stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar SahooReferred¶17
State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Rashid Ganai
Mst. Rubeena
Rashid Ali Dar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
