The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 366 RPC invoking powers under Section 482 CrPC, holding the petition devoid of merit without examining full facts.
Petition dismissed along with connected CrlM(s); any interim directions vacated.
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.
Serial No. 217 After Notice List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
CRMC No. 361/2017
Neha Sharma & Anr.
….. Petitioner(s)
Through: - None. V/s
State of JK & Anr.
….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Aseem Sawhney, AAG.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge. (ORDER)
11.11.2020
By medium of this petition, the petitioners/ accused are seeking quashing of FIR No.31/2017 registered against petitioner No.2 by Police Station, Arnia, District Jammu, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 366 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
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 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.
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.
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.
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 vacated.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge
JAMMU
November 11th , 2020 “TAHIR”
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2020.11.11 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of FIR under Section 366 RPC deserves allowance under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings at this interim stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar vs Murad Ali KhanReferred¶16
(1988) 4 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Neha Sharma & Anr.
State of JK & Anr.
Ali Mohammad Magrey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
