The Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Jammu quashed an FIR in a family property dispute, holding that the allegations were absurd and inherently improbable, manifestly instituted to wreak vengeance following disinheritance. Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that the case represented an unfortunate family feud where a pure civil dispute was sought to be camouflaged and given criminal texture with the veiled object of persecution rather than prosecution.
The petitioners approached the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 0208/2022 registered at Police Station Nowshera under Sections 457, 382, 354, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. It was argued that what was essentially a civil dispute had been given a criminal colour. The FIR was based on a complaint by the private respondent, who stated that on the night of September 4-5, 2022, she and her husband had locked their house before leaving for her maternal home, and on returning the next morning, she found the lock broken. She further alleged that when she questioned the petitioners about their presence in the house, they assaulted her, tore her clothes, outraged her modesty, and stole gold and cash before fleeing the spot.
It was contended that petitioner No. 1, an 85-year-old man, had three sons, the eldest of whom was married to private respondent No. 2, the complainant. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were sons of petitioner No. 1 and brothers-in-law of respondent No. 2, with petitioner No. 2 employed as a Constable in CRPF and posted in Jharkhand, while petitioner No. 3 was engaged in tourism business and settled in Manali. It was further submitted that petitioner No. 1 was asked by the husband of the private respondent to execute a power of attorney for pursuing a civil case, and documents were signed by petitioner No. 1 under the impression that they related to such power of attorney, whereas in fact a will deed was executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Nowshera, on August 31, 2018, without the knowledge of petitioner No. 1.
It was further contended that petitioner No. 1 immediately after he came to know about the misdeed, cancelled both the will deed and general power of attorney executed in favour of husband of the private respondent, with cancellation of both deeds being registered before Sub Judge, Nowshera on September 6, 2018. It was also stated that since petitioner No. 1 was shocked and had lost faith in his son, he disinherited his son-husband of the private respondent by executing a deed of disinheritance and got it registered on the same day. According to the petitioners, the cancellation of will deed, power of attorney and execution of disinheritance deed agitated the private respondent and her husband, due to which they filed frivolous complaint under Domestic Violence Act which later came to be disposed of as compromised.
Justice Sekhri, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Salib v. State of UP, 2023 SCC Online SC 947, observed that if the case was critically examined and analyzed with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, there was no doubt that the impugned FIR was lodged by the private respondent at the behest of her husband with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the disinheritance of her husband by his father. It was further noted that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR were so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could say there was ground for proceeding against the petitioners.
The Court observed that petitioner No. 1 was 85 years old man, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were his younger sons and husband of the complainant was his eldest son, with complainant/private respondent being daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1. It was noted that allegations of the private respondent/complainant that his 85 years old father-in-law alongwith his sons assaulted her, torn her clothes, outraged her modesty and stole away gold and cash from her house in broad daylight in the very presence of his three sons, were not only absurd and inherently improbable, but it was manifest that these allegations were attended with malice and instituted to wreak vengeance.
The Court emphasized that although witnesses had been examined by the investigating agency during the investigation, none had stated anything regarding theft of cash or ornaments from the complainant’s house, nor about outraging her modesty. It was held that the impugned FIR was lodged by the private respondent to vent her frustration and to feed the grudge arising from the disinheritance of her husband by his father, petitioner No. 1. The allegations made in the FIR were found to be actuated with malice both in fact and in law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate
Respondent: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1