J&K High Court Quashes Decade-Old FIR, Calls It “Classic Case” of Vengeance: “Criminal Prosecution Not to Be Used as Instrument of Harassment”
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed an FIR pending since 2015, terming it a clear misuse of criminal law to exert pressure in a civil dispute. The Court held that “this is a classic case of respondent No. 2-complainant trying to wreck vengeance upon the petitioners with a view to spite them and to coerce them to settle a civil dispute at his terms.” Citing authoritative precedents, the Court observed that “criminal prosecution is not to be used as an instrument of harassment for seeking private vendetta.” Accordingly, the FIR registered under Sections 425, 436-A, 506, and 120-B of the RPC and all proceedings arising from it were quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The matter arose from FIR No. 147/2015 dated 14.05.2015, registered under Sections 425, 436-A, 506, and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) at Police Station Domana, Jammu. The FIR was lodged based on directions issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The complainant, a neighbour and relative of the petitioners, alleged that on 04.05.2015 and again on 09.05.2015, the petitioners sprayed chemicals on his plants and trees, causing them to dry. He also alleged that the petitioners issued threats and declared that they possessed dangerous chemicals which they would use against him and his family.
In response, the petitioners submitted that the complainant had encroached upon a piece of land belonging to one Advocate Ram Raj Rathore, situated between the two parties' properties, and that a civil suit concerning the same was pending before the City Judge, Jammu. According to the petitioners, the complainant had illegally blocked their access to their own home, leading them to initiate a civil suit to protect their easementary rights.
The petitioners contended that the complainant had filed multiple criminal complaints over time with similar allegations, all with the intention to harass and coerce them in connection with the ongoing civil dispute. These included a complaint under Sections 323, 341, 504, and 506 RPC against the husband of petitioner No. 1, which was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2013, and a subsequent complaint involving similar allegations, against which this Court had granted a stay on proceedings vide order dated 30.05.2014.
Additionally, the petitioners submitted that the complainant's son had sent obscene messages to a relative of the petitioners, for which a formal complaint had been lodged with the Crime Branch, Jammu. As per the communication from the SSP dated 12.03.2014, registration of an FIR in that case had been recommended.
The petitioners further submitted that after proceedings in a previous complaint were stayed by the High Court, the complainant initiated a fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of the present impugned FIR. On this basis, the petitioners argued that the complaint and subsequent police action were actuated by malice and constituted a clear abuse of the legal process.
The complainant opposed the petition. The case was heard at length, and the Court perused both the pleadings and the Case Diary produced by the Investigating Agency.
Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded that there was an evident pattern of repeated complaints from the same complainant, each containing allegations similar to those found in the impugned FIR. It was noted that earlier complaints, including one in which the complainant alleged that the petitioners had damaged his plants by throwing waste and chemicals, had already been stayed by this Court. The current FIR merely alleged a similar occurrence on a different date.
The Court stated: “It appears that there is a dispute of civil nature going on between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2. It also appears that respondent No. 2-complainant has from time to time lodged several criminal prosecutions against the petitioners and their other family members.”
The Court observed that only three witnesses were examined in the course of investigation over a span of ten years—namely, the complainant, his son, and a photographer who had taken images of the alleged damage. It was noted that the alleged incident occurred in broad daylight and in open space, yet no independent witnesses had come forward. The Court found this to be indicative of the implausibility of the allegations and the absence of supporting evidence.
It was recorded: “This shows that no person other than the complainant and his son has supported the case of the respondent No. 2-complainant for all these 10 years.” Given the nature of the dispute and the context of prior proceedings, the Court held that the complaint appeared to be “a brazen attempt on the part of the respondent No. 2-complainant to prosecute and persecute the petitioners.”
In addressing the principles applicable to quashing criminal proceedings, the Court referred to multiple judgments of the Supreme Court. Citing Mr. Robert John D’souza v. Mr. Stephen V. Gomes (SLP (Crl) No. 330/2015, decided on 21.07.2018), the Court reiterated that “criminal prosecution is not to be used as an instrument of harassment for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused.”
The Court also referred to M/S. Medchl Chemicals Pharma P. Ltd v. M/S. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors., 2000(3) SCC 269, in which it was observed that “frustrated litigants ought not to be encouraged to give vent to their vindictiveness through legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice.”
Further, the Court cited Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State Of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007(12) SCC 1, where the Supreme Court had held that “Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.”
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the Court concluded that the initiation and continuation of the FIR was motivated not by any genuine criminal grievance, but as a tool for coercion amidst an ongoing civil conflict. Justice Dhar noted: “The manner in which the complainant has been making repeated criminal complaints against the petitioners of more or less of similar nature makes it clear that the same are actuated with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance upon the petitioners.”
The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowed the petition in full. The Court directed:
“Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 147/2015 dated 14.05.2015 and the proceedings emanating there from are quashed.”
It was further directed that the Case Diary be returned to respondent No. 1 through Deputy Advocate General Mr. Pawan Dev Singh.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Smt. Suresh Parihar and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another
Case Number: CRMC No. 67/2016, CrlM No. 1034/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
