CRM(M)/190/2021 of JEETO DEVI Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SHO POLICE STATION KATHUA AND ANOTHER on 30 December 2022

ORDER

1. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in this case on the last four consecutive dates of hearing, the last being dated 16.11.2022. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

2. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No. 26/2021 dated 18.01.2021, registered with Police Station, Kathua for commission of offences punishable under Section 504 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1989”).

3. The FIR in question has been challenged on the ground that the same is bad in law and facts and the respondent No. 1 without applying his mind to the contents of the complaint/application and nature of the offence has registered the FIR in question. He has also committed an error of law by appointing Head Constable as an Inquiry Officer prior to the registration of the impugned FIR and thereafter by appointing the Sub-Inspector also as Investigating Officer, who are incompetent officers to inquire the offences under the Act 1989. Respondent No. 2 with an ulterior motive has managed to get the impugned FIR registered and the investigation thereupon is illegal one. None of the acts alleged were committed by the petitioner and the allegations are absurd.

2 CRM(M) No. 190/2021

2 CRM(M) No. 190/2021

4. The respondents have filed the status report, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No. 26/2021 registered at police Station, Kathua under sections 504 IPC, 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989. On 18.01.2021, HC-Mohd. Hussain, who was proceeded vide DDR No. 30 dated 18.01.2021 reported back at P/S Kathua after conducting the enquiry of complaint received through Dy. SP, Hqrs, Kathua, lodged by one-Dimple Kumar w/o Gopal Chand D/o Nardev Singh R/o Barnoti Tehsil and District Kathua. The complaint from P/S Kathua duly endorsed by Dy.SP Hqrs. Kathua No. Rdr/Clt/2021/188/HQ dated 09.01.2021 for the enquiry of complaint on the receipt of complaint visited at village Barnoti and recorded the statement of the complainant, namely, Dimple Kumari W/o Gopal Chand D/o Nardev Singh R/o Barnoti Tehsil and District Kathua. As per the statement of the complainant, it is found that on the day of occurrence, the complainant was cleaning her vacant plot situated at Barnoti and found that one-Jeeto Devi W/o Tek Chand @ Teku was throwing waste there. On this, the complainant asked Jeeto Devi the reason for throwing waste there. On this, Jeeto Devi became aggressive and started abusing while saying that you are just a "Chamar" and remain in your limits and need not to become more neat and clean. Moreover, she further said that "Aap Brahmano ke jute ki mail bi nahi ho" if you want to live in the community of Brahmana then remain in your limits otherwise leave the community which hurts the sentiments of the complainant severely. On this report, case FIR No. 26/2021 u/s 504 IPC, 3(1) (r) of the Act of 1989 was registered at P/S Kathua and investigation of the case was entrusted to SI-Guruinder Singh. During the course of investigation, the I.O visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded the statement of complainant as well as witnesses u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. As per the statements of witnesses/complainant and other circumstances, offences 504 IPC, 3(1) (r) of the Act of 1989 had been proved against Jeeto Devi @ Raj Rani W/o Tek Chand R/o Barnoti, Tehsil and District Kathua. After transfer of SI-Gurvinder Singh, investigation of the case was handed over to PSI-Riaz Ahmed of P/S Kathua, who during the further course of investigation, made efforts to arrest the accused lady. On 01.04.2021, an order of this Court vide CRM(M) No. 190/2021 dated 31.03.2021 titled “Jeeto Devi @ Raj Rani Vs UT of J&K and Ors.”received to this office through DPO Kathua's endorsement No. Pros/Misc/2021/1674 dated vide 01.04.2021, whereunder the High Court has ordered that investigation of the aforesaid case shall continue but the challan shall not be presented without leave of this court. As per the verbal directions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua on 05.05.2021, investigation of the case was handed over to undersigned and during the further course of investigation, the undersigned obtained the Caste Certificate of complainant from Tehsildar, Kathua, which reveals that complainant falls under Scheduled Caste Category. Investigation of the case is in progress, however, the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR filed by Jeeto Devi @ Raj Rani W/o Tek Chand R/o Barnoti, Tehsil and District Kathua is under review before this Court and further investigation of the case is going on.

5. From the perusal of the status report so filed, it is evident that the investigation is in progress. Vide order dated 31.03.2021, it was ordered by this Court that investigation in the impugned FIR shall continue, but the challan shall not be presented without leave of this court. It appears that the respondents have not expeditiously conducted the investigation in this case, otherwise by the time, the investigation would have been completed.

6. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and ors., reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in provision itself. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is a very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

7.

7. Having regard to the allegations made in the FIR in question and the status report so filed, the commission of cognizable offence has been alleged, which is required to be investigated by the police. Therefore, in view of this, FIR in question cannot be quashed.

8. In view of the above, I do not see any case having been made out by the petitioners, therefore, the instant petition shall stand dismissed. 9.The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected application.

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE

Jammu 30.12.2022 Ram Krishan