Dismissed

Akber Din and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Anr.

J&K HC12 Nov 2020CRM(M)/193/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit, facts were incomplete, and the power under Section 482 is an exception to be exercised sparingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; all connected CrlMs dismissed; interim directions vacated; investigation to proceed expeditiously.

Akber Din and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Ssp Poonch… — Quashing and FIR | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

Serial No. 103 Admission Cause List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

¶3

(Through Virtual Mode)

¶4

CRM(M) No. 193/2020 CrlM No. 642/2020

¶5

Akber Din & Ors.

¶6

….. Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through: - Mr Shams-ud-Din Shaaz, Advocate.

V/s

State of JK & Anr.

….. Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr Aseem Sawhney, AAG.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

¶14

(ORDER)

¶15

12.11.2020

¶16

By medium of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code

¶17

of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners/ accused are seeking quashing of FIR No.0039/2020 dated 13^th of March, 2020, registered against them by Police Station, Mendhar, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 147 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶18

At the very first blush, what requires to be stated is that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, in a catena of decisions, deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule, but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of

¶19

the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily and if the trial is allowed to linger when, prima facie , it appears to the Court that the trial would likely end in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be, thus, invoked/pressed into service only: (i) to prevent abuse of process of Court; (ii) to secure the ends of justice; and (iii) to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

¶20

In ‘State of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan’ ; (1988) 4 SCC 655 , the Apex Court of the country has held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.

¶21

While keeping in view the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot, prima facie , take a decision at the interlocutory stage when entire facts of the case are incomplete, hazy and, more so, when material evidence is yet to be collected and issues involved could not be seen in their true perspective. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold.

¶22

In view of the above discourse, this petition is found to be devoid of any merit. It entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all connected CrlM(s). Interim directions, if any subsisting as on date, shall stand

¶23

vacated. The authorities concerned are directed to take the investigation of the case to its logical conclusion in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶24

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge

¶25

JAMMU November 12^th , 2020 “TAHIR”

¶26

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2020.11.12 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Akber Din and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akber Din and Ors. v. Union Territory of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvez Ahmad Nengroo Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Finance Department)

Rouf Ahmad Dar Vs Government of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Din Mohd and Ors. Vs Rashidan Begum and Ors.

Residents of Ward No 40 Bharat Nagar Kamla Palace Lane Talab Tillo Jammu Th Vikram Rathore. Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary Ueed and Others.

Muzamil Rafiq Ganai Th Adil Rafiq Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th S H O Police Station Bhaderwah Distt Doda.

Nitin Bakshi Vs Union Territoryof J and K Th SHO Police Station Domana and Anr.