The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed a criminal complaint filed under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code along with the order dated 18 November 2013 whereby the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunderbani issued process against the petitioners. Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC observing that once a Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, is not satisfied about the sufficiency of material and orders an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, he cannot later pass an order summoning the accused on the very same material without any additional evidence in favour of the complainant.

According to the allegations in the impugned complaint, on 03 March 2013 at about 7:30 a.m., the petitioners forcibly encroached upon land belonging to the respondent-complainant comprised in Khasra No.1161 measuring 14 kanals and 8 marlas at village Siot, Tehsil Sunderbani. It was alleged that when the complainant resisted the encroachment, the petitioners entered his residential house, beat him with kicks and fists and hurled abuses. Some witnesses allegedly came to the spot and saved the complainant, otherwise the petitioners would have committed his murder.

After filing of the complaint, the trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence of the complainant and one witness. On the same day, the Magistrate ordered an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC through the SHO Police Station, Dharamsaal to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations. The SHO submitted a report dated 03 April 2013 concluding that the allegations were false and the complaint was filed to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners due to long-standing enmity. Dissatisfied with the first inquiry report, the Magistrate directed a fresh inquiry. The SHO again conducted inquiry and submitted a report dated 25 June 2013 reiterating that the allegations were based on falsehood as neighbours had not supported the occurrence.

On 18 November 2013, the trial Magistrate considered the second inquiry report along with the preliminary statements and recorded satisfaction that offences under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 and 34 RPC were made out against the petitioners and issued process.

The petitioners challenged the complaint and the order issuing process contending that there was a long-standing civil dispute over the same land between the parties, petitioner No.1 had lodged FIR No.80/2012 against the respondent and two witnesses cited in the complaint, and the impugned complaint was a counterblast to those proceedings. It was also submitted that the trial Magistrate had not applied his mind and issued process on the same material on which he had earlier found it necessary to order inquiry under Section 202 CrPC.

Justice Sanjay Dhar examined the record of the trial Magistrate and noted that after recording preliminary evidence the Magistrate had ordered inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, indicating he was not fully satisfied about the truthfulness of the allegations. Both inquiry reports had raised serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint. In the absence of any additional material favouring the complainant, it was not open to the Magistrate to record satisfaction and issue process on the very same material, the Court held.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick (2024) 4 SCC 289, the Court observed that when a Magistrate postpones issuance of process and calls for a report under Section 202 CrPC, he cannot later summon the accused on the same material without any additional evidence. The order issuing process has drastic consequences and requires proper application of mind; such orders cannot be passed casually.

The Court also noted the background of long-standing civil dispute and enmity between the parties. Documents placed on record showed that petitioner No.1 had filed proceedings before the SDM Nowshera regarding the same land and had lodged FIR against the respondent and the witnesses cited in the complaint. The two inquiry reports had categorically stated that neighbours did not support the occurrence and the complaint was filed only on account of enmity.

The Court concluded that the impugned complaint was filed by the respondent to settle a civil dispute at his terms and as a counterblast to the criminal proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1. Continuing the complaint against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned complaint along with the proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.

Case Title: Babu Ram & Ors. v. Kewal Krishan
Case No.: CRMC No. 404/2013
Date of Judgment: 25 March 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar

Click HERE for full Judgment