TEHMINA AKHTAR Vs. SYED SHAMIM AHMAD
LAWS(J&K)-1999-3-6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 01,1999

TEHMINA AKHTAR Appellant
VERSUS
SYED SHAMIM AHMAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ORDER :- Both these petitions are being taken up together as they can be disposed of by a common Judgment and the same have been filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint titled Alhaj Engineer Syed Shamim Ahmad v. Tehmina Akhtar and others pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and the order of that Court dated Nov. 2, 1998 with all other proceedings passed therein. First petition was filed by Dr. Tehmina Akhtar and others, who is accused 1 in the complaint and another petition is filed by State of Jammu and Kashmir through Mohd. Amin Bhat, who is accused No. 8. In both the petitions, petitioners have urged that the complaint lodged by respondent No. 1 does not disclose the commission of offence even if the complaint is believed at its face value.
(2.) In Petition No. 130/98, petitioners have urged that the respondent has filed the complaint with mala fide intention to pressurise her not to contest matrimonial cases pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu, where the respondent has filed applications for the custody of minor daughter under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act. The complaint has been filed by the respondent just to harass her and her relatives, who have been roped in, as accused persons in the frivolous complaint, so the petitioners have submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu while issuing process has abused his judicial power, which they want to be quashed.
(3.) In the second petition also, petitioner Mohd. Amin Bhat S.P. (CID) Foreign Registration Officer too has prayed for quashing the complaint against him on the ground that the commission of no offence is disclosed from the complaint against him and moreover whatever he did that was in the official capacity in the discharge of his official duties; without prior sanction, he could not be proscuted. He has submitted that respondent 1 is a Pak national, he stayed beyond the period shown in the Vissa, so as per rules, and law, he had to take steps for the deportion of respondent 1, which pained him and he (respondent 1) without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lodged complaint against him, which is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of sanction.;


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