HC quashes FIR; seeks compliance on queries


Jammu, May 5: Justice MK Hanjura of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today quashed FIR NO 78/2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 426, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 406 RPC, along with all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
While quashing FIR, Justice MK Hanjura after hearing Adv Sachin Gupta for the petitioners whereas Sr. AAG Nanda for the State observed that before parting, it needs must be said in a pertinent digression that the respondent No.2- Gurmeet Singh, the then SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, has violated the directions extended by the Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal with impunity. He detained the petitioner- Anil Kumar in Police Station Gandhi Nagar for a period of three days without any authority of law which came to the surface on an enquiry conducted against him by the SDPO City South, Jammu, on the direction of the IGP Jammu. What action has been taken against the erring officer is required to be made known to this Court. To this is added that in the inquiry report the SDPO City South, Jammu directed that an FIR be registered against the SHO Gandhi Nagar for confining the petitioner in the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, without following the established procedure of law. Instead of registering an FIR against the then SHO, he continued to enjoy a lucrative posting which gave him a lever in his hands to wreak vengeance against the petitioner No. 1 and settle scores with him. It was only when the petitioner No.1 knocked at the portals of the Court that an FIR was registered against him, that too, after a great lull and to crown it all what is the present status of the FIR registered against the respondent No.2. These circumstances which require to be explained by the State radiate from the fact that the police force is a disciplined one and the faith that the people in general repose in it should not get eroded, corroded and rusted. A copy of this order shall be provided to Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG who shall file a compliance report in light of the queries raised above, before the next date, after getting the inputs from the officers concerned.
While allowing the petition seeking quashment of FIR, Justice MK Hanjura observed that the law is that Section 561-A Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to give an effect to an order under the code and to prevent abuse of process of Court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have the inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. Courts are invested with all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle of Quando lex aliquid alique concedit concediture et id Sine quo res ipsa esse non protest (When the law gives the person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist), Justice MK Hanjura observed. JNF

Share This Story

Comment On This Story


Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex
NSE Nifty