w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Raj Daluja & Others v/s Union Territory of J&K & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

Company & Directors' Information:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RAJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1952PTC002146

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

    CRM(M). No. 439 of 2020 & Crl. M. Nos. 1852, 1853 & 1698 to 1700 of 2020

    Decided On, 31 December 2020

    At, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI

    For the Petitioners: Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ankesh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Raman Sharma, AAG.



Judgment Text

CrlM(1698/2020)1. Mr. Sethi, Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-II i.e., order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No. 27070/2018, titled "J&K Educational Society vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others", which reads as under:-"Issue notice, returnable in 6 weeks.Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained by the parties."2. According to Mr. Sethi, the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2018, came to be passed in the SLP (supra) upon challenge thrown therein to order dated 29.02.2018 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 72/2014. The said order is reproduced in the petition at para 56 and same being relevant and germane here is extracted and reproduced hereunder:"Finally, before parting with this judgment, we are constrained to state that the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, in this matter leaves much to be desired and has many lacunas in it. It also emerges from the record that the investigating officers of the Vigilance Organization have failed to perform their duties honestly and had not dealt with this case in the manner in which it ought to have been. We say so because the real and actual beneficiaries of the said "allotment, i.e. respondents 1 to 3 in LPAOW No.72/2014, have not been arrayed as co-accused in this case despite the fact that all acts, of omission and commission have been done directly or indirectly to give them the benefit. Therefore, it is here by directed that the Vigilance Organization shall re-investigate this matter and conclude, the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and after completing, the investigation, shall file a fresh Challan before the competent Court of Law in this regard in the light of directions given above, thereby making the beneficiaries of land-in-question as co-accused. However, the direction given above shall not be taken as conclusion of this investigation."3. According to Mr. Sethi, in presence of the order of status quo (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents had no occasion to either proceed with the re-investigation of the case or else to proceed with the filing of the challan before a competent Court. According to Mr. Sethi the respondents however, have proceeded ahead with the re- investigation and consequently contemplated to file the challan while informing the petitioners about the same on 24.11.2020, even though the respondents had been intimated and informed earlier by the petitioners about the order of the Apex Court (supra).4. According to Mr. Sethi, otherwise also the FIR in question registered by the respondents is illegal in as much as the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners lack basic ingredients and in no case constitute the commission of the said offences by the petitioners. According to Mr. Sethi the FIR is highly motivated and under the said FIR, the petitioners are being subjected to harassment and victimization. Mr. Sethi states that the FIR is abuse of process of law. Mr. Sethi, thus, insists for grant of interim relief.5. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the respondents has filed objections on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 in opposition to the main petition, however, Mr. Sharma has not chosen to file any objections to the instant application. In the objections (supra), Mr. Sharam states that the respondents were not aware of the order of status quo (supra) passed by the Apex Court as in the said proceedings the respondents are not impleaded as party respondents.6. According to Mr. Sharma after completing the investigation pursuant to the direction dated 29.10.2018 (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents prepared the final charge sheet for production of the same before the competent Court and that on 24th November, 2020 the petitioners came to be informed about the same and that the petitioners then provided a photocopy of the order of the Apex Court dated 4.10.2018 (supra) to the respondents.7. Perusal of the record reveals that the responders have under taken re-investigation in the matter pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 29.09.2018 (supra) which order admittedly is under challenge before the Apex Court in the SLP (supra) wherein order of status quo dated 04.10.2018 (supra) has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.8. Be that as it is, the petitioners in the petition seek quashment of the FIR No. 21/2003 registered with respondent No. 2 inter alia amongst others, on the grounds noticed and reflected in the preceding para.9. The respondents in their objections filed in opposition to the main petition ironically, however, have not controverter the said grounds so much so as noticed above did not choose to file objections in opposition to the instant application filed for interim relief. The respondents therefore, in the interest of justice are required to be provided a further opportunity to file detailed reply/ response.10. At this stage, in view of the above, ends of justice demand grant of an interim relief, lest the petition may become infructuous.11. Response by or before next date of hearing by the respondents in the meanwhile, status quo.12. Modification/alteration or vacation on motion.13. List along with the main petition on 18.02.2021.CRM(M) 439/2020 Admit.Issue notice. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG waives notice on beha

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lf of the respondents.Reply by or before next date of hearing i.e., 18.02.2021. CrlM No.1853/2020 for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and time is extended by four weeks.Application is disposed of.CrlM No. 1852/2020 Having regard to the contents of the instant application coupled with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, same is allowed and the documents annexed with the instant application i.e. Copy of judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench and copy of SLP (Civil) 27070/2018 are taken on the record of main petition.Application is disposed of.
O R