ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the report of Mohammad Hussain case, FIR No. 10 of 1982 was registered at Police Station, Samba, under sections 452, 147, 148, RPC and afterwards offences under sections 365 and 368, RPC were added. The allegations were that on January 28, 1982 Abdul Majid and Abdul Hafiz sons of Sh. Abdul Rehman, Advocate, residents of Mohalla Dalpatian, Jammu, accompanied by their servant, came to the house of Mohammad Hussain situate in village Pakhri. These persons were armed with swords and tokas, and they for the purpose of abducting Mst. Rehmat Bibi widow of Ali Mohd. resident of Digyana, inflicted injuries to him; they forcibly took away Mst. Rehmat Bibi. Abdul Rehman petitioner, herein, bas filed this petition under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report on the grounds that the case was connected against him and his sons at the instance of Sh. Harisaran Dogra, Advocate and also that Mst. Rehmat Bibi made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before Munsif, Judicial Magistrate, Jammu completely denying the allegations levelled in the First Information Report.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General. I have perused the record before me. Police has investigated the case and has prepared challan against Abdul Majid, Abdul Hafiz, sons of Abdul Rehman, Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Sultan and Noar Mobd. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case, Eastern Spinning Mills, Sh. Virinder Kumar Sharda and another v. Rajiv Padder and others, have held that interference by the High Court at investigation stage is permissible only if non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and others, have laid down, in paras 12 and 13, the following law: I am therefore, unable to find that either a statutory -provision or the binding precedence in any way places a blanket bar against quashing of proceedings by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction at the investigative stage, or to place the later process beyond the place of judicial scrutinyTT. Having opined as above I must strike the strongest note of caution in this context. Though I have held that the High Court would have inherent 1. AIR 1985 SC 1600. 2. AIR 1982 P. & H. 472. jurisdiction to quash investigative process in a proper case, it does not mean that this power is to be exercised indiscriminately. To conclude I see no blanket bar against quashing of a First Information Report and the consequent investigation, even before a charge-sheet is filed in a court, provided that the requisite preconditions formulated above for the exercise of powers stand, satisfied. Without being exhaustive these may be briefly summarised as under:

(3.) If we look into the First Information Report in the present case, we find that there is nothing .against the petitioner, Sh. Abdul Rehman, Advocate. Main thrust, as comes out from the contents of the report, of the complainant Mohd. Hussain was against the culprits regarding their involvement in abducting Mst. Rehmat Bibi. She made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. in which she specifically stated that Abdul Rehman Advocate was his attorney holder and she was living with him with her own consent and Mohd. Hussain forcibly took her to his house where he maltreated her and she came back to the house of Abdul Rehman. She further deposed that Mohammad Hussain made her to put her thumb impression on some documents and she had to execute fresh power of attorney in favour of Abdul Rehman. In her statement she, praised the conduct of Sh. Abdul Rehman Advocate who, according to her, had kept her with love and affection, this statement of Mst. Rehmat Bibi completely shatters the First Information Report. It appears from record that Smt. Rehmat Bibi died and Mohammad Hussain levelled allegations against the petitioner regarding her death due to which S.H.O. Police Station, Samba applied for exhumation of the dead body and dead body was exhumed and postmortem examination conducted by a team of doctors. The lady was found to have died natural death. These facts clearly shows that the mala fide on the part of Mohd. Hussain complainant ill implicating the petitioner and others. If we apply the principal laid down in the above said authority of Punjab and Haryana High Court it comes out that this court should interfere in such like investigated case when the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. Mohd. Hussain complainant in the case wanted to avenge for the old lady whom he even kept at his residence in confinement and maltreated her and when this old lady of 90 years came back to the house of the petitioner, Mohd. Hussain lodged the First Information Report. Subsequently when the lady died he got the dead body exhumed again to implicate the petitioner and his sons but he failed in that mission as the team of doctors found the lady to have died of natural death. The old lady had appointed the petitioner as her attorney in regard to some property and that irked the complainant. It is a fit case where inherent powers of the court are required to be invoked as non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice.