SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR bearing No. 0382 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017 registered with Police Station, Domana for commission of offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC against the petitioners.

(2.) It is stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, late Sh. Rattan Lal had purchased land measuring 12 Kanals falling under Khasra No. 1418/311, Khewat No. 04, situated at Village Raipur Domana, Jammu from its owner, namely, late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma S/o Sh. Ganga Dutt i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the complainant, namely, Sanjeev Sharma, through three different Sale Deeds, which were registered by the Sub-Registrar, Jammu (2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu) on 05.08.2003, 08.08.2003 and 31.12.2003 and thereafter, the mutations with respect to the land were also attested in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. After the demise of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, mutation of inheritance was also attested in favour of the petitioners being the legal heirs. It is further stated that in the month of September 2017, legal heirs of Late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma challenged the above said three sale deeds before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the said land. Thereafter, one of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma namely Sh. Sanjeev Sharma filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu that was referred to the respondent No. 2 for investigation and as such, FIR bearing No. 0382 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017 was registered against the petitioners. In the complaint, it is stated that deceased Gopal Krishan Sharma neither approached the revenue authorities for issuing fard intkhab nor he gave any consent to execute the sale deed. The deceased Rattan Lal with the manipulation of revenue authorities got the fard intkhab of 12 Kanal of land that is irrigated and by impersonation and misrepresentation produced some other person in place of Gopal Krishan Sharma and got the sale deeds registered whereas, deceased Gopal Krishan never signed in English but he always signed in Hindi. It is also stated in the complaint that under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, the land could not be alienated. In the complaint it was specifically mentioned that predecessor-in-interest of the accused persons (petitioners herein) has played a fraud and prepared forged documents only to grab the land of the complainant and his other family members.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the FIR primarily on the ground that the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is the result of total nonapplication of mind on the part of respondent No. 2 as bare perusal of complaint reveals that no offence much less a cognizable offence has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. It is further stated that impugned FIR is nothing but a result of abuse of process of law by the respondent No. 2. It is further stated that the petitioners have nothing to do with the commission of alleged offences and the allegations in the complaint have been made only against the deceased father of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be prosecuted on the basis of such allegations. It is further stated that falsity of the allegations made in the complaint would also be manifest from the fact that neither Gopal Krishan Sharma who sold the land to predecessor in interest of the petitioners nor any of his legal heirs raised grievance with regard to the sale deeds during the lifetime of late Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma.