MST. HAMEEDA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 198 of 2015 for offences under Sec. 447-A and 353 RPC filed against her before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Budgam.

(2.) It appears that an FIR bearing No.198 of 2015 came to be lodged with Police Station, Budgam, alleging therein that an information was received from the police personnel deployed for the security of officers residing at Budgam that one lady, after breaking the security cordon and using abusive language against the officials, entered the residence of an officer. On the basis of this information, aforesaid FIR for offences under Sec. 447-A of RPC came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case, it was found that on 26/7/2015, while the police officials were on duty near the residence of officers of district Budgam, the petitioner, who claimed herself to be the wife of SSP, Budgam, crossed the security barrier, trespassed into the residence of the SSP and also hurled abuses in the name of the SSP. It was also found that the petitioner had prevented the security personnel deployed over there from performing their official duties. Thus, offences under Sec. 447-A and 353 of RPC were found established against the petitioner and the challan was laid before the court.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned challan on the grounds that she had entered into wedlock with respondent No.2, the then SSP, Budgam, on 14/6/2001 but during the subsistence of said marriage, respondent No.2 contracted second marriage without seeking her consent and without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 prepared a forged divorce deed that was challenged by the petitioner by way of a civil suit before the court of Civil Judge Junior Division (Sub Registrar), Srinagar, and vide judgment dtd. 28/12/2014, the divorce deed dtd. 19/9/2005 was declared as null and void. It has been further averred that the petitioner, after obtaining the decree from the Civil Court, approached the court of 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and vide order dtd. 24/7/2015 passed by the said Court, defendants in the suit including respondent No.2 herein were restrained from interfering in petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of residences of respondent No.2 at Srinagar and Budgam. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner as an act of vengeance on the part of respondent No.2, who is a high ranking police official and that the same does not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner.