Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Thr Commissioner Secretary Home Dept and Ors.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶2

CRM(M) No. 55/2021(O&M)

¶3

Reserved on 22.04.2024 Pronounced on 01.05.2024

¶4

Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) S/o. Late Shri Vasdev Singh Jamwal R/o. 19-Exchange Road, Jammu, at present, Pakhian, Mishriwala, Jammu, aged 60 years

¶5

Kuljeet Singh S/o Late Shri Rashpal Singh R/o. Shama Chak, Jammu, aged 53 years

¶6

3. Varindha Jamwal W/o. Shri Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal, R/o. 19-Exchange Road, Jammu, at present Pakhian, Mishriwala, Jammu, aged 55 years.

¶7

Through: Mr. Dinesh Singh Chouhan, Advocate Ms. Damini Chouhan, Advocate

¶8

Vs

¶9

.…. Respondent(s) its to

¶10

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Home Department, J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Jammu

¶11

Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu

¶12

Station House Officer, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.

¶13

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG

¶14

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

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioners, through the medium of this petition, have sought quashing of FIR bearing No. 337/2020 dated 07.12.2020 registered with

¶17

Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu for offences under sections 341, 323,

¶18

2

¶19

CRM(M) No. 55/2021

¶20

504 and 506 IPC at the instance of the complainant, Surinder Singh, who has not been arrayed as respondent in this petition.

¶21

It is stated that the petitioners had gone to Lemon Tree Hotel, near Railway Station, Jammu to attend marriage anniversary ceremony on 06.12.2020. The petitioner No. 1 had heated arguments with his brother, namely, Brij Raj Singh Jamwal, who had come with pre-determined mind but he went away after intervention of the petitioner No. 2. After the petitioners finished their dinner and were about to leave the venue, the accused persons, as mentioned in FIR bearing No. 335 registered under Sections 341,323,504 and 506 IPC dated 06.12.2020, attacked the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with an iron buckle of the belt and with fists and kicks, resulting into serious injuries. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 cried for help and were saved by the guests, who were present in the function. The accused persons were arrested by the Police Personnel standing outside the Lemon Tree Hospital when they tried to escape. After watching CCTV footages of Lemon Tree Hotel, the Police of Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu registered FIR bearing No. 0335 dated 06.12.2020 at 23:15 hours against the accused persons, namely, Gourish Jamwal S/o. Brij Raj Singh, Dimple W/o Brij Raj Singh, Brij Raj Singh S/o. Vasdev Singh, Surinder Singh S/o. Balbir Singh and Surjeet Singh S/o. Balbir Singh. The medical examination of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was conducted at Government Hospital, Sarwal. It is urged that as a counter claim to the FIR No. 0335 (supra) registered against the aforementioned accused persons, accused-Surinder Singh managed to get the impugned FIR registered on same set of allegations and incident.

¶22

3

¶23

CRM(M) No. 55/2021

¶24

The petitioners have impugned the FIR bearing No. 337 dated 07.12.2020 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, on the grounds that the same could not have been registered in respect of same incident, more particularly when FIR in respect of same incident was already registered by the concerned Police Station. It is also urged that the offences as mentioned in the impugned FIR are not made out against the petitioners.

¶25

The respondents have filed the objections but in respect of some other FIR. However, the Investigating Officer has produced the Case Diary for the perusal of the Court.

¶26

Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the second FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners, particularly when in respect of same occurrence, FIR stood already lodged by the petitioner No. 2.

¶27

Per contra , Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy.AG has vehemently argued that lodging of counter FIR in respect of same incident is permissible and one of the accused in first FIR, namely, Surinder Singh, who happens to be the complainant in the FIR impugned, was also injured in the incident, which is duly substantiated by the opinion of the Medical Officer.

¶28

Heard and perused the record.

¶29

The record depicts that initially an FIR bearing No. 335/2020 was registered on 06.12.2020 at 23.15 hours at the instance of petitioner No. 2 against Gourish Jamwal, Dimple, Brij Raj Singh, Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh for offences under sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The said FIR was registered in respect of occurrence that took place at 21:45

¶30

4

¶31

CRM(M) No. 55/2021

¶32

hours on 06.12.2020 near Lemon Tree Hotel near Railway Station, Jammu. Thereafter, on 07.12.2020 another FIR in respect of same occurrence was got registered by Surinder Singh S/o. Balbir Singh against the petitioners, which has been impugned in the present petition. Needless to mention here that the complainant in the impugned FIR also figures as accused in first FIR bearing No. 335/2020. In the FIR impugned before this Court, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are that petitioner No. 1 was having property dispute with Brij Raj Singh. The complainant-Surinder Singh used to take care of some agriculture land belonging to Brij Raj Singh, due to which, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were having enmity with him. During the party at Hotel Lemon Tree at Trikuta Nagar, Kuljit Singh, Brij Bhushan Singh and his wife Varinda Jamwal stopped his way and attacked him and they also hit his mother Sudesh Kumari.

¶33

This Court has perused the Case Diary and it is found that the complainant-Surinder Singh has suffered injuries as per the certificate issued by the Medical Officer concerned. The statement of the complainant-Surinder Singh has also been recorded and he has stated that he was assaulted by the petitioners. In view of the above, it cannot be stated that no offence is made out against the petitioners, which may warrant interference by this Court.

¶34

So far as the contention of the petitioners that no second FIR could have been registered in respect of the same occurrence is concerned, the same is misconceived, as there are different versions in respect of the same incident by the two rival parties. The registration of cross FIRs in respect

¶35

5

¶36

CRM(M) No. 55/2021

¶37

of the same incident is permissible as there may be two different versions

¶38

of the rival parties against each other in respect of same incident. investigated. In Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P., (2013) 5 SCC 148, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

¶39

“24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the threeJudge Bench in Upkar Singh [(2004) 13 SCC 292], the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.” (emphasis added)

¶40

In view of what has been said and discussed above, no interference of this Court is warranted. However, SHO Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu is directed that both the FIRs be investigated by the same Investigating

¶41

Officer, if the charge sheet in FIR No. 335/2020 is not already filed.

¶42

Disposed of.

¶43

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

¶44

JAMMU 01.05.2024 Rakesh PS

¶45

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

¶46

KARAM CHAND 2024.05.01 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Thr Commissioner Secretary Home Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Bhushan Singh Jamwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Thr Commissioner Secretary Home Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babli Devi and Ors. Vs State of J and K Th. Commissioner Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

State Th. Sho.P/S.Kalakote,Rajouri Vs Dalip Singh and Ors.

State Th.S.S.P.Rajouri Vs Balbir Singh and Ors.

Rozee and Others Vs U T of J and K Th SHO Police Station Raj Bagh Kathua and Another

Bharat Bhushan Raina Vs U T of J and K Th Police Station Kishtwar

Mohd Irfan Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Home Deptt and Others