SHUKAR DIN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 63/2015 dated 11.03.2015 registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 307, 427, 436, 511 RPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioners are residents of Karyani Talab, Narwal Bala, Jammu. It is contended that petitioner Nos. 1& 2 are agriculturists whereas remaining petitioners are contractor and businessmen by profession. It is further contended that petitioner No.2 along with one Barkat Ali is in possession of land falling in Khasra No. 194 situated at Karyani Talab, Narwal Bala, Jammu. One Mohd. Yousuf, who is infamous criminal, land grabber and history-sheeter, has been making aborting attempts to encroach upon the piece of land which is in possession of petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali. Said Mohd. Yousuf is also involved in a criminal case FIR No. 84/2008 dated 30.04.2008 under Sections 376, 341, 34 RPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort (Trikuta Nagar), Jammu. Mohd. Yousuf in order to illegally encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 used to unlawfully park his vehicles in the said land. The petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali have already filed a complaint which is pending consideration before the District Magistrate, Jammu. It is further contended that since afore-named criminal was illegally and unlawfully making attempts to encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, therefore, the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, therefore, the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali brought the matter to the notice of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammu (South) Gangyal, Jammu. The SDM, Jammu (South) visited the spot to enquire about the status and possession of land over Khasra No. 194. During the course of enuqry held by the SDM, Jammu (South) on spot, besides statements of the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, the statements of the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 6 were also recorded and after going through the revenue records, it was found by SDM, Jammu that land in question is in possession of Petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali and the said land is required to be kept free from all encumbrances till the final outcome of the complaint filed before the court of Learned District Magistrate, Jammu. The SDM Jammu also found that Mohd. Yousuf used to park his vehicles on the land which is against the ethics of a transporter having the permit for transportation/carriage of goods. It is averred that the SDM, Jammu after holding thorough enquiry into the matter passed Order No. 17 of SDM/JMU-S of 2015 dated 10.03.2015 whereby SHO, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu has been directed to seize those vehicles i.e. two tankers, tippers, JCB and a tractor trolley seen on the spot and park them outside that piece of land or in Police Station.

(3.) Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned FIR No. 63/2015 and the investigation/proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR by the respondent No.2, therefore, wish to challenge the same on the following grounds. It is contended that the impugned FIR is totally illegal and has been registered by the respondent No.2 by succumbing to the pressure yielded by the complainant. It is stated that the impugned FIR has been registered as a retaliatory measure on the pressure and influence yielded by the complainant. It is submitted that as the complainant Mohd. Yousuf was making attempts to illegally encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 when the SDM South, Jammu carried out enquiry on spot, the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 6 stood as witnesses in support of the petitioner No.2. The SDM South, Jammu passed an order directing seizure of the vehicles of the complainant on 10.03.2015, the complainant on 11.03.2015 i.e. just one day after the passing or order by the SDM South, Jammu, manoeuvred to get the impugned FIR containing a story, which even does remotely connect the petitioners with the commission of offences as have been alleged against the petitioners. It is stated that as per the impugned FIR itself, the petitioners are involved in any offence much less the offences alleged against them in the impugned FIR. The complainant has himself attributed any offence as against the petitioners except the fact that the complainant has rivalry with the petitioners. It is averred that no person including the complainant in the aforesaid alleged incident was injured nor any person suffered any injury in the said incident which is quite apparent from the perusal of the impugned FIR. That the impugned FIR is a result of wreck-vengeance with the complainant has entertained against the petitioners inasmuch as, on the complaint filed by the petitioner No.2 and one Barkat Ali before the District Magistrate, Jammu, SDM Sought Jammu. It is stated that under the garb of the impugned FIR, the petitioners are being subjected to harassment and victimization by the police notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have committed any offence much less the offences as alleged against them.