Allowed

Dullah Khan and Ors. v. Mohd.Iftikhar and Anr.

J&K HC3 Sept 2021CRMC/219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes proceedings under Section 100 Cr.P.C initiated by a respondent for wrongful confinement. The court held that the petitioner has been residing with her parents, not detained, and continuing the process amounting to abuse of law.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and proceedings pending before the Trial Court under Section 100 Cr.P.C were quashed. Respondent No. 2 was deleted from the array of respondents.

Dullah Khan and Ors. Vs Mohd.Iftikhar and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 22 (Regular Cause list)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CRMC No. 219/2016 CrlM No. 1353/2019 IA No. 01/2016

¶4

Dullah Khan and ors.

¶5

…..Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. M.R. Daing, Advocate.

¶7

¶8

Mohd. Iftikhar and Anr.

¶9

.…. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. S.S. Ahmed, Advocate for R-1.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER 03.09.2021

¶13

Respondent No. 2-Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Reasi (Munsiff) is deleted from the array of respondents, as the concerned has been unnecessarily arrayed as party.

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 100 Cr.P.C, pending before the Court of JMIC, Reasi ( hereinafter referred to as the “ Trial Court ”).

¶15

It is stated that the petitioner No. 5 is legally wedded wife of respondent No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner No. 5. Further, the petitioner No. 3 is the brother of the petitioner No. 5 and petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 5 respectively.

¶16

It is also submitted that on 13.12.2013, the respondent No 1 assaulted the petitioner No. 5 and threw her out of her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 5 filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C before the Court of Sub-Judge, Udhampur for grant of maintenance on 10.05.2014. As a counterblast to the said proceedings, the respondent No. 1 also lodged FIR

¶17

2 CRMC No. 219/2016

¶18

bearing No. 136/2015 dated 14.09.2015 against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 with Police Station, Reasi for commission of offences under Sections 458, 323 & 506 RPC and the said FIR has been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2015.

¶19

It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has also filed a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Additional Special Magistrate, Reasi. Thereafter, he also filed a baseless application under Section 100 Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court for issuance of warrants against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. The respondent No. 1 initiated the proceedings under Section 100 Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court, in which it has been stated in para-8 of the application that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have illegally confined the petitioner No. 5 at their house in order to grab the money from him and she is not being allowed to meet anybody. Pursuant to the filing of the said application, notices have been issued to the petitioners. The petitioners include the alleged detainee as well.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioner No. 5 has not been kept in wrongful confinement, but has been residing with her parents. So, the proceedings under Section 100 Cr.P.C initiated by the respondent No. 1 are unwarranted.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 1 had made number of efforts to bring back the petitioner No. 5, but she did not bother to come back and further, she has not seen the face of her children for the last six years.

¶22

Heard and perused the record.

¶23

3 CRMC No. 219/2016

¶24

So far as the proceedings under Section 100 Cr.P.C are concerned, it is only to be seen whether the alleged detainee is under wrongful confinement or not.

¶25

So far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner No. 5, who has been allegedly confined by the petitioner No. 1 to 4, as claimed by the respondent No. 1, has herself filed a petition for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. She has demonstrated in the present petition that the numerous litigations are going on between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1. So, from the perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner No. 5 has not been detained by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and rather, she has been residing with her parents. There is no illegal confinement of the petitioner No. 5 by the other petitioners.

¶26

In view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the continuance of the proceedings under Section 100 Cr.P.C, pending before the learned Trial Court shall be nothing, but an abuse of process of law. In view of this, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court are quashed.

¶27

(Rajnesh Oswal)

¶28

Jammu 03.09.2021 Ram Krishan

¶29

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

Dullah Khan and Ors. v. Mohd.Iftikhar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dullah Khan and Ors. v. Mohd.Iftikhar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Pargotra Vs Shama Begum

Mohd.Shabir Vs Rubeen Khatoon

Tariq Mehmood Bhat Vs Zubaida Akhtar and Another.

Mohd.Aslam Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Mohd.Rafiq Vs State Th.S.S.P.Poonch and Ors.

Mohd Irfan Sheikh and Others. Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th S H O Police Station Women at Doda and Another.