| HC Rips apart FIR over property row, terms it civil dispute in disguise | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 31: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR registered against three family members in Srinagar, holding that the criminal case was a clear attempt to give a civil property dispute a criminal colour and amounted to abuse of the process of law.
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, his wife Shaheena, and son Tawseeq Mushtaq Shah, who had challenged FIR No. 84/2021 registered at Police Station M. R. Gunj, Srinagar, under Sections 354 (outraging modesty) and 448 (criminal trespass) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Naveed Gul, while Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway, assisted by Ms. Maha Majeed, appeared for the Union Territory. Head Constable Gulzar Ahmad from the concerned police station was also present in person.
The complainant, who is the sister-in-law of Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, had alleged that the accused entered her house, assaulted her, and dragged her in a manner that caused her headgear to fall, claiming it amounted to outraging her modesty. The petitioners argued that the property at Khankai Moulla, Kalashpora, was jointly owned by the family, and a status quo order issued by the Civil Court in 2015 was already in effect, proving the dispute was purely civil in nature.
Justice Dhar observed that the material collected by the investigating agency did not suggest any intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant. “Having regard to the close relationship between the parties, it is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage the modesty of the complainant,” the Court said. The Court further ruled that the charge of criminal trespass could not be sustained since the petitioners were co-owners of the property. “Unless it is shown that the property was in exclusive possession of the complainant, entry into it by co-owners cannot constitute trespass,” the judgment stated.
Referring to multiple Supreme Court precedents, Justice Dhar warned against the growing tendency of litigants to “convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases” as a means to harass or pressure the opposite party. He said, “The complainant has tried to settle a civil dispute by giving it a criminal colour. Such misuse of the criminal process must be curbed.”
Holding that the continuation of the FIR would amount to abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. (JNF) |
|
