Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds

Investigation is not theatrics; it must serve justice with coherence and truth: J&K HC Quashes FIRs in a Case of Alleged Legal System Exploitation

03 January 2025 6:29 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh delivered a landmark judgment in CRM(M) Nos. 466/2024, 159/2024, and 206/2024, involving contentious allegations and counter-allegations between Ajay Kumar Sareen, a Public Prosecutor and Civil Judge-select, and Ragini Rajput, a government teacher, along with her husband, Rohit Krishan Bhat.

The Court quashed both FIRs filed by the parties, citing their abuse of criminal law as a tool to settle personal disputes. It highlighted serious lapses in police investigations and emphasized that justice demands factual coherence and impartiality.

The dispute originated from an incident on January 23, 2024. Sareen filed FIR 20/2024, alleging that Bhat assaulted him with an iron kada, inflicting injuries. Sareen claimed he was attacked due to longstanding enmity. However, the FIR failed to provide essential details, such as the motive or how Sareen knew Bhat's identity.

Days later, on February 1, 2024, Rajput filed FIR 24/2024, accusing Sareen of harassing her for months. She alleged that Sareen confronted her at her workplace and forcibly intercepted her vehicle, threatening her and pulling at her clothes. Rajput’s FIR came after multiple complaints to senior police officials, raising questions about its timing and intent.
Both FIRs involved serious allegations but presented conflicting narratives about the events of January 23, 2024, leading to simultaneous and poorly coordinated investigations.

Justice Rahul Bharti, presiding over the case, identified several critical issues:
1.    Deficient Investigations: Both FIRs suffered from lackluster police investigations. FIR 20/2024 lacked specifics about the accused and failed to establish a coherent timeline. FIR 24/2024 was delayed by over a week, and the complainant’s statement was recorded nearly a month later.
"Investigations must connect facts coherently; anything less undermines the justice system," the Court remarked.
2.    Abuse of Legal Process: The Court found that both parties misused the criminal justice system to pursue personal vendettas. It observed that the parties’ professional standings were weaponized to influence proceedings, creating a façade of victimization.
3.    Inconsistent Testimonies: Witness accounts in both FIRs were contradictory. For instance, Sareen’s initial statements omitted key details about his assailant, only to later reveal specific information. Similarly, Rajput’s version of events differed significantly from her husband’s testimony.
4.    Counter-FIRs as Retaliation: FIR 24/2024 appeared to be a retaliatory measure, filed after Sareen lodged his complaint. The Court noted the pattern of delayed reporting and the absence of urgency in the complainant’s actions, which undermined its credibility.

After a detailed examination of evidence and procedural lapses, the Court quashed both FIRs. It observed that neither party acted in good faith, and the police investigations lacked the rigor necessary for criminal proceedings.
The Court directed:
•    Improved Investigation Protocols: The police must adopt stricter guidelines to ensure impartial and fact-based investigations, especially in cases involving public officials or legal professionals.
•    Judicial Oversight: Courts must be vigilant in identifying and curbing attempts to exploit the legal system for personal vendettas.
Justice Bharti concluded:
“Justice must not be held hostage to personal rivalries or shoddy police work. The legal system demands integrity at every level.”

The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be a weapon for personal vendettas. It also emphasizes the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice from being derailed by frivolous and retaliatory litigation.

The case sheds light on the importance of impartial and meticulous police investigations, ensuring that the justice system remains a beacon of fairness and truth.

Date of Decision: December 26, 2024
 

Similar News