Neema Devi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Anr.

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the charge-sheet titled “State of J&K vs. Neema Devi and others” pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) arising out of FIR No. 156/17 registered with Police Station, Domana for commission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 RPC.

The charge-sheet has been assailed on the following grounds: (i) That the same has been filed against the petitioners with mala- fide in order to counter the complaint of petitioner No. 1 filed by her on 16.05.2017. (ii) That SHO Police Station, Domana on 22.05.2017 submitted that no case has been registered against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, thereby concealing the fact of registration of FIR No. 156/2017. (iii) That on the alleged date of occurrence, petitioner No. 3 was serving in Indian Army and was posted far away from the State 2 CRMC No. 302/2018 of J&K and had not availed any leave in the month of May,

The case projected by the petitioners in the present petition is that on

16.05.2017 during late evening hours, Renu Sharma W/o Kuldeep Sharma and Reeta Devi W/o Vijay Rathore along with few ladies came to the house of the petitioner No. 1 and demanded Rs. 350/- which was the balance credit of the shop. Petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 350/- to Renu Sharma and after getting the money, both the ladies attacked the petitioner No. 1 and her children. They started beating the petitioner No. 1 and pulling her hair in the veranda of the house of the petitioners. They also pelted stones on the house of the petitioners. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Domana, where the accused ladies were also present, but the SHO, Police Station, Domana did not take any action and stated that the matter would be settled and in future those ladies would not cause any harm to the petitioners. On 17.05.2017 the petitioner No. 1 filed a written application before the SHO, Police Station, Domana, but the SHO did not take any action and again sent the petitioner No. 1 back to her home. The next day she came to know that the SHO, who was related to one of the accused, was going to register the case against the petitioner No. 1 and her family members, as such, apprehending the arrest and harassment at the hands of Police, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, wherein the Police submitted a report on 22.05.2017 stating therein that no case was pending against the petitioners. Suddenly on 24.08.2017, SHO Police Station Domana asked the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to come to 3 CRMC No. 302/2018 the Court at Janipur in connection with the complaint and when they reached the court, they were taken to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and charge-sheet was presented against the petitioners, which was subsequently transferred to the learned trial Court.

Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that a false and frivolous FIR has been registered as a counter blast to the application filed by the petitioner No. 1 and further that the petitioner No. 3 was not in Jammu on the day of alleged occurrence. He also submitted that the SHO concerned had earlier submitted a report that no case was pending against the petitioners.

Mr. P. D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents argued that disputed questions of facts have been raised by the petitioners and they cannot be considered while adjudicating the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard and perused the record. The first contention raised by the petitioners is that the charge-sheet is in fact a counter blast to the FIR registered by the petitioner No. 1, more particularly when the Police had submitted a report on 22.05.2017 that no case was pending against the petitioner. A perusal of the record reveals that the FIR No. 278/2017 was registered at the instance of petitioner No. 1 on

07.09.2017, though date of occurrence has been mentioned as 16.05.2017. So far as FIR bearing No. 156/2017 registered against the petitioners is concerned, the same was registered on 17.05.2017 and after the conclusion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid for commission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 RPC. In view of the disputed facts that the FIR against the petitioners is prior in time to the FIR registered by the petitioner 4 CRMC No. 302/2018 No. 1 at this stage it cannot be concluded that the same is counter-blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.1. Therefore this contention of the petitioners is rejected.

The other contention raised by the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 3 was at his place of posting. The plea of alibi is required to be proved like any other fact and the petitioners can prove it before the learned trial court during the course of trial. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu: 26.04.2023 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.