ROMOLA KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal procedure, petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 183 of 2007 registered at Police Station Domana under section 448 RPC.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that Will executed by Swarn Kumari Dutta, the mother of the petitioner, in favour of respondent no. 2, Mrs. Aneta, her sister, was null and void and a civil suit seeking declaration that the Will was null and void and inoperative had been filed by her in the Court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff) Jammu, who had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and position on spot over the suit property. The fir is stated to have been lodged to use the police force for settlement of the civil dispute between the parties.

(3.) PETITIONER's counsel, Mr. Dubey, submits that the contents of the FIR do not spell out requisite ingredients needed for offence punishable under Section 448 RPC, and even if the allegations made in the FIR were to indicate about a trespass, it was a purely civil trespass, which could not have been taken cognizance of by the police. He further submits that as respondent No. 2 was not present at the time of the alleged trespass, so there could not have been any intimidation, annoyance or injury to any person in possession of the property, and in that view of the matter, offence under Section 448 RPC cannot be said to have been prima facie established before the registration of the FIR. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on State v. Mahinder Singh an unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, delivered in case titled Kanwal sood v. Nawal Kishore and Anr, in cr. Appeal No. 69 of 1981 decided on 26. 11. 1982, and on Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A. P. , in Cr. Appeal No. 603 of 2002 decided on 2. 9. 2003.