Moot Points;
13. Let us understand as to what is a “Counterblast Case”
14. In legal parlance, a Counterblast Case refers to a situation where criminal cases are lodged by the parties against each other which generally, trace their origin to the same occurrence. In essence, it is a situation of reciprocal accusations, meaning thereby is that one party files a case against another, which is followed by a counter case by the accused against the complainant. Such a situation arises when parties retaliate against each other with allegations and counter allegations or counter criminal proceedings to wreck vengeance or to feed fat the grudge. The party retaliate a criminal case against him to respond to a perceived wrong or injury to settle personal score rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. In the circumstances, the courts must examine the timing and context of the cases in order to determine if they
were indeed filed as a Counterblast or there is any legitimate ground to proceed.
15. An FIR cannot be dismissed merely because it follows the filing of a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case has to be evaluated on its specific facts, the intent behind the FIR sought to be quashed and the surrounding circumstances. However, if an FIR is filed shortly after a civil or a criminal proceedings, it must be scrutinized for ulterior motives. We need to understand that the determination as to whether an FIR is a Counterblast or
not, often involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.PC and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court.
FULL JUDGMENT;
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 1123/2022
Reserved on: 03.03.2025
Pronounced on: 30.04.2025
Suchet Singh and Ors. ...Petitioners
v.
UT of J&K and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 [Cr.P.C., for short] for
quashment of an order dated 08.08.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional
Munsiff, Forest Magistrate, Jammu [“the trial court”] in terms of Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., on a complaint preferred by respondent No.3 and consequent
FIR No. 39 dated 08.02.2020 lodged at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar,
Jammu.
2. An overview of the background facts is that respondent No. 3
preferred a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Jammu stating inter alia
that after the demise of her husband on 09.02.2017, she was residing alone
on the first floor of her house No. 195-AD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, raised by
her deceased husband. It was alleged inter alia by the complainant that after
the demise of her husband, her father-in-law- petitioner No. 1, in order to
force her to vacate the portion of the house under her possession, brought the
other petitioners/accused persons from Trikuta Nagar and all of them started
torturing her. As a result, the parties, who happened to be close relatives
were embroiled in multiple litigations.
3. It was alleged that on 25.06.2019, while she was out of town, the
petitioners broke open the door of her house, broke the costly items lying
there and stole spare parts of her vehicle, from the balcony. She approached
Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, but no action was taken by the
concerned.
4. It was further alleged by respondent no. 3-the complainant that on
14.07.2019 at around 8:30 p.m., when she returned home, after paying a visit
to one her relatives, petitioners No. 5 and 6 started abusing her and when she
objected, they became violent and started pushing and slapping her. At this,
rest of the petitioners No. 1 to 4 also came to the spot. Petitioners No. 3 and 4
also started pushing and slapping her. Petitioner No. 1 caught hold her from
her hair and dragged her. Petitioner No. 2 caught hold her from her arms and
dress and pushed her out. Complainant went on to allege that petitioners
struck her with a wooden stick on her head. She fell unconscious and was
rescued by her driver, namely, Ajay. The petitioners, before leaving the place
of occurrence, threatened to kill her. The complainant goes on to state that
same day on 14.07.2019, she went to Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
and narrated the whole episode. But no action was taken. She again went to
the Police Station on the next day, i.e. 15.07.2019 to enquire about her
complaint but she was told to come after a couple of days. However, Police
got her MLC conducted. It is alleged by the complainant that she repeatedly
went to the Police Station to enquire about the status of her complaint, but no
FIR was registered till 19.07.2019. As a result, she approached, Superintendent of Police (South) by way of an application dated 20.07.2019,
who vide his reference No. 11705/RdrSPSJ dated 20.07.2019 directed SHO,
Police Station, Gandhi Nagar to take appropriate action under law against the
petitioners, which was supplied to the concerned SHO on the same day, but,
according to the complainant, despite the lapse of ten days no action was
taken against them. The aforesaid circumstances compelled the complainant
to approach the Court, in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the trial court
vide impugned order dated 08.08.2019, directed Police Station, Gandhi
Nagar to take necessary action under law and on receipt of the aforesaid
order, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners for
offences under Sections 354, 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
5. Petitioners have questioned the impugned FIR primarily on the
ground that it has been lodged by respondent No. 3 as a counterblast to the
two FIRs registered against her by petitioner No. 1 and that civil disputes
pending between the parties have been given a cloak of criminal offences.
According to the petitioners, the allegations made in the impugned FIR,
taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence
against them.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Mr. J. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
relied upon Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka and ors; AIR
2021 SC 5298 to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of petition. On the
other hand, learned Dy. AG appearing for the UT has vehemently argued that
the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No. 3 in the impugned
FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the
petitioners which are required to be investigated.
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes and preserves the powers, which
are inherent in the High Court, to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. It is a reminder to the High Court that it
is a court of justice not merely in law but possess inherent powers to remove
injustice. It is trite that while inherent power of the High Court envisaged
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has a wide ambit and plenitude, but it has to be
exercised; (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to secure the ends
of justice; and (iii) to prevent the abuse of process of the court. In the
circumstances, High Court is obliged to evaluate whether ends of justice
would justify the exercise of the powers which inhere in it, before it embarks
to form an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or a complaint or an FIR
could be quashed or not.
9. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are that on
25.06.2019, they broke open the house of the private respondent, trespassed
into it, broke the costly items lying there and stole away the spare parts of a
vehicle from the balcony of her house. She approached the concerned Police
Station, but of no avail. It is further alleged by the complainant that on
14.07.2019, at around 8:30 p.m., maid of petitioner No. 1 and her husband
abused her and on her objecting, they became violent and started pushing and
slapping her. On this, rest of the petitioners also joined. Petitioner No. 3 and
4 started pushing and slapping her. It is categoric allegation of the
complainant that petitioner No. 1 caught hold her from her hair and dragged
her. Petitioner No. 2 caught hold her from her arm and dress and pushed her
out. Complaint also alleged that petitioners struck her with a wooden stick on
her head, as a result, she fell unconscious. She was saved by her driver. She
approached the concerned Police Station, and when no action was taken, she
approached SP (South) but no FIR was lodged despite express order of the
concerned SP. As a result, she was constrained to approach the trial court, on
whose intervention the impugned FIR came to be lodged.
10. It is pertinent to mention that it is also allegation of the complainant
that after the demise of her husband, petitioners had been pressurizing her to
vacate the portion of the house under her possession and stated to be
constructed by her husband during his life time. This gave rise to multiple
civil and criminal litigations between the complainant and her close relatives,
the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1, who happens to be her father in
law.
11. There is no quarrel to the settled position of law that criminal law
cannot be used as an instrument of oppression in the hands of unscrupulous
litigants to settle private vendetta. Nobody can be allowed to make an
attempt to stretch the contours of civil disputes to impart it a criminal texture.
However, it is equally trite that a complaint disclosing a civil transaction may
also have a criminal texture. Given the conspectus of a case, a civil wrong
may also have a criminal colour. It is the duty of this Court to ascertain
whether a dispute substantially of civil nature is given a criminal texture or
not and the real test is whether the allegations contained in the
complaint/FIR, as the case may be, disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence or not.
12. The petitioners have assailed the impugned FIR on the predominant
premise that it is a Counterblast to the two FIRs registered by petitioner no. 1
against the complainant-respondent no. 3 as also the civil disputes inter-se
the parties.
13. Let us understand as to what is a “Counterblast Case”
14. In legal parlance, a Counterblast Case refers to a situation where
criminal cases are lodged by the parties against each other which generally,
trace their origin to the same occurrence. In essence, it is a situation of
reciprocal accusations, meaning thereby is that one party files a case against
another, which is followed by a counter case by the accused against the
complainant. Such a situation arises when parties retaliate against each other
with allegations and counter allegations or counter criminal proceedings to
wreck vengeance or to feed fat the grudge. The party retaliate a criminal case
against him to respond to a perceived wrong or injury to settle personal score
rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. In the circumstances, the courts must
examine the timing and context of the cases in order to determine if they
were indeed filed as a Counterblast or there is any legitimate ground to
proceed.
15. An FIR cannot be dismissed merely because it follows the filing of
a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case has to be evaluated on its specific
facts, the intent behind the FIR sought to be quashed and the surrounding
circumstances. However, if an FIR is filed shortly after a civil or a criminal
proceedings, it must be scrutinized for ulterior motives. We need to
understand that the determination as to whether an FIR is a Counterblast or
not, often involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by
the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482
Cr.PC and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court.
16. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Mitesh
Kumar J. Sha (supra) is misplaced as the said case was decided on different
facts and circumstances. The allegations against the appellant in the said
cases was that they had sold the flats contrary to the terms of memorandum
of understanding and there were no grounds to interfere with the matter and
sequence of events of the said case did not fulfill the necessary ingredients of
the alleged offence. Pertinently, respondent No. 2, in the aforesaid case had
already decided to pursue his claim by way of a civil suit and therefore, it
was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a criminal complaint on the same
issue cannot proceed and was quashed.
17. In the present case, two FIRs, stated to have been lodged by
petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 3, do not stem out from the same
occurrence, though one of the FIRs i.e. FIR No. 38/2020 has been lodged by
petitioner No.1 against respondent No. 3 on the same day i.e. 08.02.2020.
However, timing and context of the said FIRs and the impugned FIR are on
different premise.
18. Respondent No.3 in the impugned FIR has alleged that on
14.07.2019, at around 8:30 p.m., when she returned home, after paying a visit
to one of her relatives, she was pushed, slapped and beaten by
petitioners/accused persons. She fell unconscious and was saved by her
driver. Petitioner No. 1-complainant in FIR No. 38/2020 has alleged that on
14.07.2019 at about 11:44 p.m., he was telephonically threatened by
respondent No. 3 to be eliminated. He further alleged that on his objecting to
one of the accused i.e. accused No. 4, namely, Ajay staying in the house in
the odd hours of the night, respondent No.3/accused became furious, called
rest of the accused in the compound of the house and started beating him, his
family members and his maid with fists and blows. It was also alleged that
respondent No. 3 and co-accused chased his maid, Pinki and threw chilli
powder in her eyes. It is evident from the conspectus of two FIRs i.e. FIR in
question and the one lodged by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 3 and
others that one incident followed another and are different in context and
timing. It appears that after the first incident, which, according to respondent
no. 3, took place at around 8:30 p.m., respondent No. 3 with the aid of co-
accused is alleged to have committed the occurrence in the mid night.
According to the petitioners, a final report with respect to the said occurrence
also stands filed in the competent Court. However, allegations of the
impugned FIR are required to be investigated. Petitioners have also annexed
copies of two civil Suits filed by respondent No. 3 for permanent prohibitory
injunction against the petitioners and a copy of a petition preferred by
respondent No. 3 under J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2010, those have nothing to do with the allegations contained in the
impugned FIR.
19. It is evident from the conspectus of the present case that
unfortunately the parties i.e. petitioners No. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 3, who
happen to be close relatives are entangled and embroiled in multiple civil and
criminal litigations. Petitioner No. 1 has admitted to have filed two FIRs
against her daughter-in-law-respondent No. 3 herein and she has also filed
civil and criminal cases against him. However, allegations in the impugned
FIR not only disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the
petitioners but they are serious in nature, as it is alleged by the complainant-
respondent No. 3 that she was not only pushed and slapped by the maid of
petitioner No.1 and her husband, but petitioner No. 1 caught hold her from
her hair and dragged her and petitioner No. 2 caught hold her from her arms
and dress and pushed her out. Complainant also alleged that petitioners
struck her with a wooden stick on her head, as a result, she fell unconscious
and was saved by her driver. These allegations prima facie disclose the
commission of cognizable offences against all the petitioners. While
examining an FIR or a complaint which is sought to be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. In other words,
this Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot go into the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR or the
compliant and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage
by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed above, the
present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed along with connected
CM(s).
21. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. The investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to investigate the case and file a report in the
competent court.
(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE
Jammu
30.04.2025
Paramjeet
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes