AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition, filed under Section 561-A of J&K Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 482 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure), the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 80/2018 for the offences under Sections 467/471/34 and 420 RPC registered with Police Station, Kathua.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to the filing of instant petition, are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 2 kanals comprised under Khasra No. 519 situated at Ward No. 9 Taraf Manjli Tehsil and District Kathua with petitioner No.2 in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2012. According to the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 10.00 lac was paid as part payment to petitioner No.3 and they were put in possession of the land in question. It is contended that petitioner No.3 was in exclusive possession of the land in question and the other co-sharers had conveyed their no objection to the execution of the Agreement to Sell by petitioner No.3 in favour of other petitioners. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the land in question and that he has never been in possession of the same. It is averred that, on an earlier occasion, respondent No.2 had lodged FIR for offence under Section 447 RPC against petitioner No.1, but after investigation, the said case was closed. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, in order to harass and pressurize the petitioners, after closure of earlier FIR, moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and on the directions of the said Court, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on several grounds. The main grounds urged by the petitioners are that the contents of the FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners, even if same are taken at their face value. It is further urged that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2, if any, is essentially a civil dispute and criminal prosecution is not maintainable in a case of such nature.