MOHD. HANIEF Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the 'Code"), the petitioner by instant petition seeks quashment of the Challan titled UT of J&K vs Mohammad Hanief and Anr, pending before the Court of learned Railway Magistrate, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 68/2015 registered against the petitioners in Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 5(2) of PC Act.

(2.) It is averred, that FIR No. 68/2015 for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 5(2) of PC Act came to be registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu against the petitioner and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed by respondent No.1 before the Court of learned Railway Magistrate, Jammu; that the petitioner on the basis of the request made by the complainant and his relatives has only filled the pay in slips of the bank for transfer of money and has nothing to do with the cause projected in the FIR; that the charge sheet which is under challenge in the present petition is an abuse of process of law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reasons that in FIR the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned, there is no whisper in the whole FIR regarding the petitioner except that he has filled the transaction slip of the bank which has been credited into the account of accused No.2 with whom the petitioner is neither having any relation nor is known to each other for the reason that the petitioner is the resident of Poonch and accused No.2 is the resident of Srinagar, as such, the FIR as well as charge sheet impugned requires to be quashed. It is averred, that under the garb of the impugned FIR, the petitioner is being subjected to harassment and victimization by the police notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not committed any offence muchless the offence as alleged against him, the entire story as alleged in the impugned FIR, if take on its face value, prima facie proves to be wrong, incorrect and far away from truth and does not bring home the commission of offence punishable under any Sec. of IPC at all. On this ground also the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. It is averred, that during pendency of the petition, respondent No.2, who is complainant in the case, present in person and has stated that he does not want to press the instant case as he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner.

(3.) Besides placing on record, a compromise deed between the complainant and the accused person, the petitioner/accused has also placed on record a certified copy of the challan produced by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu in the Court of CJM Jammu against the accused person, wherein it is mentioned that the offence punishable under Ss. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 were not made out against the accused person which needs to be dropped, however, offence punishable under Ss. 420, 120-B IPC were made out against the accused person.