Decided on November 10,2020

Union Territory Of Jk Respondents


Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. - (1.)This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 0147/2020 dated 12.07.2020 registered at Police Station Bari Brahmana against the petitioner under section u/s 447 IPC.
(2.)Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that petitioner was owners in possession of a big chunk of land falling under various khewats and khasra numbers including khasra Nos. 826 (15kanal - 18marlas), 826 (06kanal - 00marlas), 836 (12kanal - 00marlas) total measuring 33KI-18MI situated at village Birpur, Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba and neither the petitioner nor his fore-fathers were evicted nor possession was taken by the revenue authorities. In the year 2017, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the erstwhile State and vide order dated 18.08.2017, the CJM (Sub-Judge), Samba has directed maintenance of status- quo on spot and vide order dated 10.08.2019, the order dated 18.08.2017 has been made absolute. The land falling under khasra No. 826 and 836 was escheated to State vide mutation Nos. 680, 877 and 507 of village Birpur and the Tehsildar has further reported that the ex-proprietary landlords Rajinder Singh and Ors preferred a petition in the Court of Financial Commissioner CrlM No. 1387/2020 Revenue J&K against the said mutations. The Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K vide judgment dated 10.03.1995 set aside the mutations and remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu for enquiry and orders. It is further submitted that land was recorded in the name of erstwhile state and entry of order of Financial Commissioner dated 10.03.1995 was not reflected in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was in possession of the land subject matter of the FIR till 11.07.2020 when the respondent No. 2 with the help of police demolished the structures/construction raised in the said khasra numbers illegally and unlawfully and also directed the respondent No. 1 to lodge FIR against the encroachers. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR and challenges the same on the grounds detailed out in the petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lodging of FIR, in the present case, is nothing but an abuse process of law and that the FIR has been lodged with the oblique motive. It is further submitted that the registration of FIR is wholly unwarranted, aimed at victimizing the petitioner. It is further pleaded that by registering the FIR in question, the civil nature dispute between the parties has been given the shape of a Criminal complaint, which has been depreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time.

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