DES RAJ Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing FIR No. 138/2021 dtd. 15/6/2021, registered with Police Station, Kishtwar, for commission of offences under Ss. 354/506/504/147 IPC at the instance of respondent No. 4.

(2.) It is submitted that there was a dispute with regard to property between two brothers and that property dispute has led to the registration of FIRs against each other earlier also and yet again on 24/6/2021, a fight took place between two parties as a result of which, the petitioners were assaulted. Despite the fact, that some of the petitioner suffered injuries but FIR was not registered and rather the FIR impugned was registered against the petitioners. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners.

(3.) Response stands filed by the respondents, it which it is stated that on 15/6/2021, complainant submitted a written report at Police Station, Kishtwar against the petitioners stating therein that on 14/6/2021, he received telephonic communication from his home that the petitioners had beaten his wife, Geeta Devi and caused serious injuries to her. The complainant enquired about the incident from his wife who was in the District Hospital, Kishtwar and she told him that on 14/6/2021, when she had gone to public stand to fetch water, suddenly all the petitioners attacked her and started abusing her and when she opposed them, they started beating her with fists and blows. The accused No. 1 and 2 i.e. Des Raj and Chander Prakash threw Geeta Devi on the ground and tore her clothes and outraged her modesty. When Geeta Devi cried, her two sons namely Sujal Kumar and Sachin Kumar came to rescue her but the accused started beating them also and it is further stated that due to the intervention of the passersby, they were saved. On receipt of this information, FIR impugned was registered and during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and one stick and one shirt were seized as a piece of evidence from the spot. It is further stated that the complainant and the accused No. 1 and 2 were having dispute with regard to the ancestral land.