SOMA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No.17/2016 dated 02.06.2016 registered with Police Station, Budhal under Section 341, 323, 336, 504 and 506 RPC against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are owners in cultivating possessing of land bearing Kharsa no. 109, situated at village Khawas, Tehsil Khawas, District Rajouri, measuring 6 Kanals and 9 Marlas. That the petitioner no.1 approached Tehsildar, Khawas for seeking Nishan Dehi of Khasra No. 109 situated at village Khawas, Tehsil Khawas, District Rajouri vide her application dated 06.06.2015. That the petitioner no.1 had also approached respondent no. 5 with an application that the private respondents are hell bent to forcibly occupy the land of the petitioners, as such, the petitioners land be protected from encroachment till the Nishan Dehi is conducted vide her application dated 06.06.2015 through his son i.e. petitioner no. 2 (Tilak Raj) but respondent no. 5 did not take any action. That the petitioner no. 3 vide his application dated 18.12.2015 requested the Tehsildar that he was approached by his mother (petitioner no.1) 2-3 months back for Nishan Dehi of land and you was kind to issue notice to the private respondents and also directed them that nobody will sow the crop in the above said land but on 15.12.2015 the private respondents forcibly entered the land and started plowing the same, as such, action under law should be taken against them and they should be stopped for sowing further crops. He was pleased to ask Patwari Halka to visit on spot and report u/r vide his order dated 18.12.2015. That on 01.06.2016 early in the morning at about 4-5 A.M. the private respondents along with seven others started ploughing the land of petitioners forcibly and without any authority or right. On coming to know, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 came out of their house and found that there was some noise in the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.109 Village Khawas and on seeing carefully they found that private respondents along with seven others were plowing the land at the back of the petitioners. They ask the private respondents and others not to interfere on their land in response to which the private respondents and others namely Taj Mohd., Mohd. Noor, Vider Bhegum, Sahida Bhegum, Khursheed Bhegum, Rekhi Ram and Manzoor Hussain who were lased with deadly weapon including Axe, Parthi (weapon like Toka with about one feet cutting side), Lathis and stones attacked petitioners no. 1& 2. They badly injured petitioners no.1& 2 wherein the tooth of petitioner no. 2 was also got broken and he was fallen unconscious. They also torned the clothes of petitioner no.1 and raged her modesty by their criminal acts and also by using filthy and abusive language and she also become half naked due to torning of her clothes.

(3.) It is further submitted that on this, the petitioners approached respondent no. 5 with written complaint, in response to the complaint respondent no. 5 did not take any action and on the next day i.e. 02.06.2016 the petitioner no. 2 approached respondent no. 4 and submitted written complaint, who despite assurance did not do anything which prompted the petitioners to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri vide their complaint dated 04.06.2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri vide his order dated 04.06.2016 send the complaint to respondent no. 4 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 for registration of FIR against the accused persons but the respondent no. 4 did not register the same and instead of registering FIR against the private respondents and seven others he registered anti-dated FIR against the petitioners having been connived with private respondents and others. That despite the direction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri the respondents no. 4& 5 did not register FIR against private respondents and seven others and ultimately the petitioners approached respondent no. 2 vide his application dated 14.06.2016 and the respondent no. 2 vide its letter no. CB/Clt/16/3484-85/GB, dated 14.06.2016 directed the respondent no. 4 to take appropriate action under law against the private respondents and seven other culprits. He further directed for submission of action taken report to his office within weeks time positively, he also send a copy of the letter to respondent no. 3 (the SSP, Rajouri) for necessary action but despite his direction the respondent no. 3& 4 did not bother to take any action.