BALWANT SINGH Vs. NARESH ABROL
LAWS(J&K)-2020-12-24
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 16,2020

BALWANT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Naresh Abrol Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Dhar,J. - (1.)Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class (Sub-Registrar ) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate") by virtue of which, the learned Magistrate has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu to investigate the matter and proceed under law in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
(2.)It is the case of the petitioners that a civil litigation pertaining to unauthorized construction made by respondent No.1 over the land under khasra No. 518 min situated at village Paloura, Tehsil Jammu is pending for the last six years. It is averred that on a complaint made by the petitioners, a notice of demolition was issued by the Jammu Municipal Corporation to the respondent No.1, who challenged the same by filing an appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). Vide order dated 25.11.2013, the Tribunal allowed the compounding of major violations and the said order came to be challenged by petitioner No.1 in a writ petition bearing OWP No. 355/2014 before this Court. An order of status quo is stated to have been passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petition. It is alleged that in the aforesaid background, the respondent No.1 has filed a false complaint against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate and the same has been referred by the learned Magistrate to respondent No.2 for investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid complaint only to coerce them to withdraw the cases filed by them against him.
(3.)The petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate on the grounds that the case does not fall within the purview of SRO 202 dated 03.06.1999 which prescribes that only certain types of cases can be investigated by the Crime Branch; that this Court is already seized of the issue which is subject matter of the FIR, as such, the order of learned Magistrate directing investigation of the case amounts to interjecting the proceedings before this Court; that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner without appreciating the true facts and that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would amount to abuse of process of law.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.