Rajnesh Oswal, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the Criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint, titled, “Sonu Ratra vs. Naresh
Sharma & Ors†pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Excise Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) as also
order dated 24.01.2018, by virtue of which process has been issued against the petitioner for commission of offences under section 323, 448, 506
RPC.
2. It is stated that in year 2017-2018, the petitioner was posted as Incharge Police Station, Bakshi Nagar. In the month of January, 2018, a lady,
namely, Mamta Sharma filed an application/complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on
15.01.2018 and the said complaint was transferred to the Court of learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. The learned Magistrate after pursing
the allegation leveled in the complaint, vide order dated 15.01.2018, directed the petitioner to proceed in the matter and investigate the same. Pursuant
to the said order, FIR No. 12/2018 dated 16.01.2018 was registered against the respondent and other accused persons for commission of offences
under sections 379, 323, 447, 468, 419, 506, 120-B RPC. It is further stated that complainant in FIR No. 12/2018, namely, Manta Sharma had
approached the petitioner on the same day i.e date of occurrence, for registration of the FIR against the respondent. The petitioner called the
respondent and other persons against whom the complaint was lodged. However, the respondent and other persons did not cooperate and tried to
escape from the investigation by making one excuse or the other. It is further stated that the respondent and other accused in FIR No. 12/2018 have
produced some forged and fabricated documents i.e. mutation with the concerned Police Station by incorporating his name in the revenue record of
land comprising Khasra No. 919 min, which was duly verified by the petitioner herein. Ultimately, it was found that the names of accused persons
named in the FIR were not recorded in the mutation of land comprising under Khasra No. 919 min and just to seek undue benefits, the accused had
incorporated his name in the said mutation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner verified through the concerned revenue authorities that the
land, which the respondent and the other co-accused persons have tried to illegally encroach and grab, was in fact the land comprising Khasra No.
928 min belonging to Mamta Sharma i.e. the complainant in the FIR No. 12/2018 and not comprising Khasra No. 919 min. The respondent and other
two accused persons, namely, Devinder Singh Chib and Kishore Kumar Chib had also filed civil suit against Mamta Sharma and dragged the petitioner
in the said suit before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu on 31.12.2017, in which the respondent had stated that the father of
Devinder Singh Chib and Kishore Kumar Chib had given 10 marlas of land comprising in Khasra No. 928 min on rent to one Dhani Ram Ratra i.e.
father of the respondent and allowed him to construct his Jugies and Huts for residential purpose in the land and thereafter, another case titled, Atul
Parkash Sahi vs. Mamta Sharma was filed before the Court of Sub-Registrar, Jammu on 02.02.2018, in which it was stated that the respondent is the
tenant of Atul Parkash Sahi for the last 40 years on a plot situated at Vikas Nagar falling under Khasra No. 919 min.
3. It is stated that on 23.01.2018, the respondent filed a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu that was transferred to
the Court of Special Excise Magistrate, Jammu, in which the respondent stated that he was a non State subject holder, residing in plot of Sh. Tilak Raj
Sahi, who was the father of one of the accused namely, Atul Parkash Sahi in FIR No. 12/2018 since his birth along with his family. It was further
stated that the petitioner had performed his official duties by investigating the matter as per the directions issued by the learned Magistrate to him and
had no personal enmity with any of the accused persons in FIR No. 12/2018. It is further stated that once the Magistrate had ordered for investigation
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, it was the duty of the concerned SHO to investigate the matter and lodge the FIR. In the present case also, the
petitioner complied with the directions issued by the learned Magistrate. Further, the respondent and other accused persons in FIR No. 12/2018 dated
16.01.2018 had approached this Court by filing petition under section 561-A for quashing the FIR, but this Court directed the Investigating Officer to
file the charge sheet before the trial court and the same stood filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.04.2019.
4. The petitioner has impugned the complaint as well as the order of issuing the process against the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the
complaint has been filed with ulterior motive just to harass the petitioner and as a counterblast to the FIR No. 12/2018 that was registered against the
respondent pursuant to the direction of the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.01.2018. Further that the learned trial court has issued the process
in a mechanical manner. Also from the bare perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that no case is made out against the petitioner for commission of
offences under sections 323, 341, 452, 442, 427 and 506 RPC.
5. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the complaint, copy order of issuance of process, copy order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the learned
Special Mobile Excise Magistrate, Jammu, application under section 156 (3) filed by the applicant, namely, Mamta Sharma, copy of FIR No. 12/2018,
the revenue records, copy of civil suits filed by the respondent along with other plaintiffs, copy of the suit filed by Atul Parkash Sahi and also the
charge sheet filed against other accused including the respondent.
6. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner had simply performed his duties by registering the FIR
and investigated the matter. The complaint was filed by the respondent just to harass the petitioner and further that the learned trial court has issued
the process in a mechanical manner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since none has appeared on behalf of the respondent, as such, this Court has considered the material
available on record including the trial court record.
8. Before appreciating the contentions of the petitioner, it is apt to have brief resume of the allegations leveled by respondent. In the complaint filed by
the respondent, it has been stated that he was non-subject and had been residing in the Plot of Sh. Tilak Raj Sahi right from his birth along with his
family. In the Month of December, 2017, he was threatened by the local goons of the area for vacating the plot that was resisted by him and
accordingly, the information was passed to the Police Post, Sarwal and to the owner of the plot also. On 23.12.2017 at around 1.00 pm accused Nos.
2 to 4, namely, Manjeet Singh, Babli alias Jai Singh, Akshay Bali respectively assaulted the respondent and the respondent was taken to hospital. A
written complaint was also filed by the respondent with the Police Post, Sarwal for registration of FIR against accused Nos. 2 to 4. Further in
paragraph No. 5, it has been stated by the respondent that no action was taken by the petitioner against accused Nos. 2 to 4 and the respondent had
been called number of times from the office of petitioner for vacating the premises or he would face consequences including false implication in
criminal cases. It was further stated that the respondent was again beaten in January 2018 and he reported the same to the petitioner but the petitioner
did not investigate the matter and instead slapped him and told him to vacate the plot. It is further stated that the respondent was called on 10.01.2018
by SHO, Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, where he was beaten by the petitioner and threatened as well. These are the allegations that have been leveled
in the complaint by the respondent against the petitioner.
9. From the perusal of the allegations, it is evident that 10.01.2018 at about 1.00 pm the respondent was beaten by the petitioner and other persons and
further he was threatened also.
10. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the same was filed on 12.01.2018 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu and not on 23.01.2018
as alleged by the petitioner. Rather on 23.01.2018, the said complaint was presented by the counsel for the petitioner with the trial court and learned
trial court directed the criminal clerk to report and thereafter the statements of the respondent and one witness were recorded. From the perusal of
the statement of the respondent, recorded by the trial court, it reveals that in his statement he had stated that two police personal came to his house
and picked up him and took him to the police station, where he was assaulted by the petitioner.
11. The contention of the petitioner is that complaint was lodged as a counterblast to the FIR No. 12/2018 dated 16.01.2018 that was registered by him
pursuant to the directions of the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is without any substance as the complaint was filed by the petitioner on
12.01.2018 and not on 23.01.2018, as such, this contention of the petitioner that the instant complaint was filed as a counterblast to the FIR No.
12/2018 dated 16.01.2018 is misconceived, therefore, the same is rejected.
12. The second contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has issued the process in a mechanical manner. A perusal of the order
impugned reveals that though the complaint was filed for commission of offences under section 323, 341, 452, 442, 427 and 506 RPC but the learned
Magistrate after recording the statements of the respondent and one witness, has recorded its satisfaction with regard to the commission of offences
under sections 323, 448 & 506 RPC only, as such, this contention too deserves to the rejected.
13. I have gone through the order impugned passed by the learned trial court as well as the complaint filed by the respondent and the perusal of the
same reveal that the learned trial court has passed the order impugned well within the parameters of law laid down by Apex Court, as such, there is
no illegality in the order impugned. Needless to say that no detail reasons are required to be given by the Magistrate while issuing the process. (See
Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424).
14. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is found to be without merit, as such, the same is dismissed. The original record, if retained,
be sent back forthwith.
