A property dispute does not justify quashing proceedings alleging serious cognizable offences.

Respondent No. 2, Kuldeep Kumari, was the wife of the petitioner’s deceased uncle, Devi Dayal.

Following Devi Dayal’s death, a dispute arose between the parties concerning succession to and possession of his alleged share in ancestral property at Upper Thathar, Jammu.

Both parties approached the police against each other.

Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 85/2017 at Police Station Domana on 6 March 2017 under Sections 452, 382, 323 and 34 RPC.

Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the petitioner had committed rape, criminal trespass and wrongful confinement on 5 March 2017.

The application was transferred to the City Magistrate, Jammu, who, by order dated 9 March 2017, directed the SHO to take action in accordance with law.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC, contending that the complaint was a retaliatory measure arising from the property dispute, that the allegations were false and improbable, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

Whether the complaint alleging rape, criminal trespass and wrongful confinement disclosed a prima facie case warranting investigation, or was liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law under Section 561-A J&K CrPC?

Whether the petitioner’s reliance on the property dispute, alleged contradictions, duty records and other disputed factual matters justified interference by the High Court at the investigation stage?

The Court applied Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC, corresponding in substance to Section 482 CrPC and presently Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The governing principle is that such power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly where the complaint discloses cognizable and serious offences; disputed questions of fact, assessment of witness credibility and appreciation of evidence ordinarily fall within the domain of investigation and trial.

The Court considered the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (1) SCC (Cri) 426, concerning exceptional cases in which criminal proceedings may be quashed.

The Court considered the principle in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, relating to cautious judicial treatment of allegations of sexual offences.

It also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Mohmood Ali v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2338/2023, decided on 8 August 2023.

The Court found that the complaint alleged serious cognizable offences and that the Magistrate had lawfully directed the police to take necessary action.

Although the parties were involved in a property and inheritance dispute, that circumstance alone did not establish that the complaint was malicious or legally unsustainable.

The petitioner’s objections concerning his presence at the place of occurrence, mobile-phone location, the complainant’s duty hours, alleged omissions in the earlier FIR and the timing of the complaint involved disputed factual matters requiring investigation and could not be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 561-A.

The Court also rejected the argument based on the alleged omission in FIR No. 85/2017, holding that the earlier FIR was based on a complaint made before the alleged occurrence of 5 March 2017 and therefore could not reasonably be expected to mention that subsequent incident.

Since the complaint was not shown to be inherently absurd, legally barred or an unmistakable abuse of process, the exceptional power of quashing was not attracted.

The petitioner failed to establish that the complaint was a misuse of the process of law or that the case fell within the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 561-A J&K CrPC.

Accordingly, CRMC No. 337/2017 was dismissed, along with the connected application(s), and the learned Magistrate and police were permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Any interim direction was vacated.