PARDEEP KHANNA Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, the afore-titled two petitions bearing CRM(M) No 469/2024 and CRM(M) No.525/2024 filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., challenging FIR No.57/2024 for offences under Ss. 447, 353, 332, 225, 147 and 149 of the IPC, and Sec. 3 of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 registered with Police Station Bakshi Nagar, are proposed to be disposed of. CRM(M) No.469/2024 has been filed by petitioners Pardeep Khanna, Rajeshwar Khanna, Parth Khanna and Aditya Khanna, whereas CRM(M) No.525/2024 has been filed by petitioner Veenu Khanna.

(2.) During the pendency of these petitions, the petitioners moved applications bearing CrlM Nos.315/2026 and 314/2026 seeking amendment of the petitions. The said applications were allowed vide order dtd. 24/3/2026, pursuant to which the petitioners incorporated the relief relating to challenge to order dtd. 30/12/2024 passed by the learned Forest Magistrate, Jammu, whereby their application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the private respondents was dismissed.

(3.) It is alleged in the impugned FIR that an application came to be filed by respondent No.2, on the basis of which police of Police Post Sarwal called the petitioners for questioning, but they launched an attack upon the police party and when the police officials tried to pacify them, the petitioners raised hue and cry and attacked one of the police officials. Thereafter, the petitioner-Pardeep Khanna was taken into custody and he was booked under Sec. 107/151 of Cr. P. C. The other petitioners fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that the other petitioners, along with 100-150 persons, gathered around Police Post, Sarwal, broke open the gate of the Police Post and thereafter launched an attack upon the Police Post. The assailants took photographs and videographs and gave a severe beating to ASI Mohd. Shaheen and other police officials, thereby causing serious injuries to them. Thus, offences under Sec. 447-A, 353, 323, 225, 149 and 149 of IPC and Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, were found disclosed against the petitioners.