Prayer:

1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint titled ‘Janak Raj v. Parshotam Kumar & Ors.’ bearing File No. 23/Complaint, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, Jammu, along with the order dated 02.06.2017, whereby the learned Magistrate, upon recording the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offences alleged therein and proceeded against the petitioners.

Facts:

2. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the petition, is that on 27.04.2017 an altercation took place between the parties, who admittedly belong to the same village and are related to each other. According to the petitioners, during the said occurrence, the respondent-Janak Raj, accompanied by his wife, Gurmeeta Devi alias Neelam Devi, and his son, Susheel Kumar alias Sonu, unlawfully entered the house of the petitioners and physically assaulted petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. It is further alleged that during the course of the incident, Susheel Kumar alias Sonu caught hold of petitioner No. 3 and outraged her modesty, while the wife of the respondent also joined in assaulting petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

3. It is averred that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 sustained injuries in the incident and were medically examined at Government Hospital, Bishnah, where medico-legal formalities were conducted. On the basis of the allegations levelled by the petitioners, Police Station, Bishnah, after conducting an enquiry, registered FIR No. 93/2017 dated 27.04.2017 for offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code against the respondent, his wife and his son. The investigating agency, after completion of the investigation, presented the challan before the competent Court and the accused therein are stated to be facing trial.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that, with a view to wreak vengeance and as a counterblast to the aforesaid FIR, respondent instituted a criminal complaint on 02.06.2017 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, Jammu, alleging commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 506, 509 and 34 RPC against the present petitioners in respect of the very same occurrence. According to the petitioners, the allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated and malicious, having been levelled solely to retaliate against the petitioners for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent and his family members.

5. It is further pleaded that on the very day the complaint was presented, the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witnesses and proceeded to take cognizance of the offences alleged therein and issue process against the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the complaint itself disclosed that an FIR concerning the very same occurrence had already been registered and that the learned Magistrate, before issuing process, was required to carefully examine the attendant circumstances and the material placed on record. According to the petitioners, the order dated 02.06.2017 reflects nonapplication of judicial mind and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

6. The petitioners further assert that the complaint filed by the respondent is manifestly attended with mala fides and has been instituted with the sole object of harassing them and frustrating the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No. 93/2017. It is their specific plea that the complaint squarely falls within the categories enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal’, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

7. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the complaint despite the fact that he was serving as a Government Teacher and was on official duty in Government Middle School, Makhanpur Charkan, Bishnah, at the relevant time. It is pleaded that the attendance record of the school would substantiate his plea and demonstrate that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the alleged incident took place.

8. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the complaint as well as the order dated 02.06.2017 taking cognizance, on the ground that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court and have been maliciously instituted to settle personal scores.

9. It is pertinent to note that despite sufficient opportunity, no response came to be filed by the respondent. The order dated 10.11.2023 records the statement of learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anmol Sharma, that he did not wish to file any response, whereupon the said statement was taken on record. Subsequently, when the matter was heard in part on 24.03.2026, learned counsel for the respondent was directed to file a short-written synopsis in the matter. However, no written synopsis came to be filed on behalf of the respondent till the matter was reserved for judgment. Learned counsel, however has furnished some judgments in support of the respondent's case, which shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage.

10. Before proceeding to examine the controversy on merits, it is apposite to note that, considering the fact that the parties are closely related and the dispute arose out of an incident between family members, this Court had, on the request and assurance of learned counsel appearing for the parties, made earnest endeavours to facilitate an amicable settlement by referring the matter to mediation. Although a Mediator was nominated by the Registry pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2024, no settlement could ultimately be arrived at between the parties, compelling this Court to adjudicate the matter on its merits.

Legal Analysis:

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

12. The principal question that arises for determination is whether continuation of the criminal complaint instituted by the respondent is a bona fide prosecution or whether the same has been maliciously instituted as a counterblast to the earlier criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners, thereby warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

13. A careful examination of the record reveals that the occurrence in question allegedly took place on 27.04.2017. Immediately thereafter, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 approached Police Station, Bishnah and, upon enquiry, FIR No. 93/2017 came to be registered on 27.04.2017 itself against the respondent, his wife and his son for offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 34 RPC. The investigating agency, after conducting investigation, found sufficient material to present a chargesheet before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, Jammu, where the respondent and his family members are facing trial. Significantly, the impugned criminal complaint came to be instituted before the same Court in respect of the same occurrence. The chronology of events demonstrates that the complaint was instituted only after criminal proceedings had already been set in motion against the respondent and his family members.

14. The chronology of events assumes considerable significance. The occurrence in question took place on 27.04.2017, whereupon FIR No. 93/2017 came to be registered on the same day at the instance of the petitioners against the respondent and his family members. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency presented the challan before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, Jammu. Thereafter, the respondent instituted the impugned criminal complaint only on 02.06.2017 in respect of the very same occurrence and, on the very same day, i.e., 02.06.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offences alleged and issued process against the petitioners. The aforesaid sequence of events assumes considerable relevance while examining the true nature and object of the impugned proceedings.

15. Although the incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.04.2017, the impugned criminal complaint came to be instituted only on 02.06.2017, i.e., after more than one month. The only explanation sought to be furnished by the respondent in the complaint is that he and his family members were arrested when they approached the police for registration of an FIR against the petitioners. However, the complaint is conspicuously silent with regard to the date of their alleged arrest, the period for which they remained in custody and the date on which they were released on bail. In the absence of these material particulars, the said assertion remains vague and does not furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting the complaint. Had the allegations levelled in the complaint been genuine, nothing prevented the respondent from promptly setting the criminal law in motion or producing contemporaneous material in support thereof. This unexplained delay, when viewed in the backdrop of the admitted chronology of events, vindicates the stand of the petitioners that the impugned criminal complaint is an afterthought and has been instituted with mala fide intent to harass and intimidate the petitioners by way of applying pressure tactics.

16. Another circumstance which cannot escape the notice of this Court is that the petitioners have placed on record the medico-legal documents evidencing the injuries allegedly sustained by them during the occurrence, which ultimately culminated in registration of FIR No. 93/2017 and presentation of the police report before the competent Court. The respondent, on the other hand, has neither placed on record any contemporaneous medical evidence showing that he or any of his family members sustained injuries in the alleged occurrence nor is there any material to substantiate the assertions made in the complaint. Though the sufficiency of evidence is ordinarily a matter for trial, the complete absence of any contemporaneous material, when viewed in conjunction with the sequence of events noticed hereinabove, assumes significance while examining whether the complaint is a bona fide prosecution or a maliciously instituted counterblast.

17. The inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. Though the said power is of wide amplitude, it is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection in cases where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or result in miscarriage of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court does not sit in appeal over the evidence or undertake a meticulous appreciation thereof. However, where the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and have been instituted with an ulterior motive, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of the Court, this Court would be fully justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to interdict such proceedings. The parameters governing the exercise of this jurisdiction stand authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others’, wherein such categories were illustratively identified.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others”, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, while dealing with the scope of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings, illustratively enumerated the categories of cases where such powers could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

                     “(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in ‘Rajeev Agarwal v. Manzoor Ahmad Naik and others’, 561-A No.239/2012, decided on 25.07.2013, wherein, while dealing with the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. in the light of the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, this Court held as under:

                     "10. To make out a prima facie case is sine qua non for commencing criminal proceedings on a complaint. But that alone does not suffice or clinch the matter. Principle laid down in Bhajan Lal's case provides that proceedings can be quashed if the allegations suffer from inherent improbability or are absurd, proceedings can also be quashed where it is manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with ulterior motive. This is provided under illustrations 5 and 7 in the judgment. Judgments relied upon by ld. Respondent's counsel do not lay down law contrary to Bhajan Lal's case."

20. Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the case at hand squarely falls within the aforesaid category carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The allegations contained in the impugned criminal complaint arise out of the very same occurrence which had already become the subject matter of FIR No. 93/2017 lodged at the instance of the petitioners and had culminated in presentation of the challan against the respondent and his family members. The surrounding circumstances, the chronology of events and the material placed on record clearly demonstrate that the impugned criminal complaint is not a bona fide invocation of the criminal process, but a retaliatory measure adopted by the respondent with the sole object of neutralizing the criminal proceedings already initiated against him and his family members.

21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned criminal complaint is manifestly attended with mala fides and has been instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. The undisputed chronology of events clearly establishes that the petitioners had already succeeded in getting FIR No. 93/2017 registered against the respondent and his family members immediately after the occurrence. It was only thereafter that the respondent instituted the impugned criminal complaint in relation to the very same occurrence, despite there being no contemporaneous medical evidence or any other material lending credence to the allegations levelled therein. The attendant circumstances, viewed cumulatively, indicate that the complaint is not a bona fide invocation of the criminal process but a retaliatory measure intended to counter the criminal proceedings already initiated against the respondent and his family members.

22. This Court, while dealing with a similar question relating to criminal proceedings alleged to have been instituted as a counterblast to an earlier prosecution in ‘Ghulam Nabi Kamlak and others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others’, CRM(M) No. 49/2021, decided on 02.09.2025, after considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, held as under:

                     “17. Inherent power, in view of above discourse, given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of the Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Judicial process is a solemn proceeding, which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of the oppression or harassment. When there is a material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and a proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court or for that matter this Court will not hesitate in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR/proceeding under various categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra).”

23. The aforesaid principle applies with equal force to the facts of the present case, where the criminal process appears to have been invoked with the sole object of retaliating against the petitioners after registration of the earlier FIR against the respondent and his family members.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.’, (1998) 5 SCC 749, while emphasizing the duty of a Magistrate at the stage of issuance of process, held that summoning an accused is a serious matter and cannot be ordered in a routine or mechanical manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

                     “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused…”

Findings: -

25. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not inspire confidence. Despite the admitted existence of an earlier FIR arising out of the very same occurrence, the unexplained delay in institution of the criminal complaint and the absence of any contemporaneous medical material supporting the respondent's version, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue process on the very day the complaint was presented without adverting to these significant circumstances. The order, therefore, reflects a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction rather than the careful judicial scrutiny envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods (supra).

26. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions leave no manner of doubt that while the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, the same is nevertheless intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Equally, the law enjoins upon the Magistrate to exercise due judicial scrutiny before setting the criminal law into motion. Thus, where the material on record demonstrates that the criminal process has been invoked with an oblique motive and the order issuing process does not reflect the requisite application of judicial mind, the High Court would be fully justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to interdict such proceedings at the threshold.

27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 2022 SC 2044, Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 687, Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88, Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1153, Pritam Chand v. Prem Singh, 2007(2)JKJ 103, to contend that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561- A Cr. P.C is to be exercised sparingly and that the High Court ought not to embark upon a mini-trial or examine the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence while considering a petition for quashing. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law.

28. However, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not advance the case of the respondent. The present petition is not being decided upon an appreciation of disputed evidence or by recording findings on the truthfulness of the rival versions. Rather, the conclusion reached herein is founded upon the admitted chronology of events and the surrounding circumstances emerging from the record, which indicate that the impugned criminal complaint was instituted as a retaliatory measure after the petitioners had already succeeded in setting the criminal law in motion against the respondent and his family members. The case, therefore, stands on an altogether different footing and squarely falls within the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), where continuation of the proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

29. It needs to be borne in mind that merely because two rival versions emerge from the same occurrence does not, by itself, justify quashing of one set of proceedings. However, where the attending circumstances reveal that the subsequent proceedings have been instituted only as an afterthought to counter an earlier prosecution and are manifestly attended with mala fides, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The facts of the present case fall within the said category.

30. The cumulative effect of the unexplained delay in instituting the complaint, the absence of any contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the respondent's version and the fact that the complaint came to be filed only after criminal proceedings had already been initiated against the respondent leads to the conclusion that the complaint is nothing but a retaliatory measure and an afterthought, intended to counter the criminal proceedings already pending against the respondent and his family members. Permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to allowing the criminal process to be employed as an instrument of private vengeance, which cannot be countenanced in law.

Conclusion:-

31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned criminal complaint is manifestly attended with mala fides and has been instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners by way of a retaliatory prosecution. The case, therefore, squarely falls within Category (g) illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). Continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to permitting abuse of the process of the Court and would consequently defeat the ends of justice.

32. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, the criminal complaint titled 'Janak Raj v. Parshotam Kumar & Ors.', bearing File No. 23/Complaint, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, Jammu, as well as the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the said Court taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

33. Disposed of along with all connected application(s), if any.