BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF J&K AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU.

Basharat Hussain & Ors

…Petitioners
VERSUS

U.T of J&K through PS Home & Ors

…Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF:- INDEX

S.No Particulars Page Fee

01 Objections on behalf of private

respondent No. 3 along with
affidavit.
02 Vakalatnama.

RESPONDENT NO 3
THROUGH COUNSEL

DATED:
PLACE: -

(ACHAL SHARMA)
ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF J&K AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU.

Basharat Hussain & Ors

…Petitioners
VERSUS

U.T of J&K through PS Home & Ors

…Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Objections on behalf of private
respondent no. 3 in the above title
petition filed u/s 482 of CrPC.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS-

The answering private respondent no. 03 most respectfully

submits as under:-

1. That the present petition filed by

the petitioners is totally misconceived concocted and is

contrary to the facts as projected therein. On the sole

ground, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

2. That the petitioner has not

knocked the doors of this honble court with clean hands

and by misrepresenting the facts has got the interim order

on 11-01-2024 in the above mentioned petition filed u/s

482 CrPC.

3. That the petitioner has tried to

project the case that the FIR No. 180 of 2023 lodged with

Police Station Channi Himmat dated – 06-12-2023 due to

 the personal rivalry of petitioners and respondents due to

the marriage of daughter of respondent No. 03 with Mohd

Tazeem S/o Mohd Shafi. The facts projected by the

petitioners are totally wrong and are without any footing.

It is pertinent to mention here that in the very outset of

the petition, at para 2(a) it has been stated that the

daughter of respondent no 3 has solemnized the marriage

with the nephew of the petitioner, the fact is that the son

in-law of the respondent no. 3 who is unfortunately no

more, because of tragic accident has no relation with the

petitioners as such. The story projected by the petitioner

is totally false and frivolous and has no relevance to

quash the FIR no. 180 of 2023.

4. That so far as the death of son

in-law of private respondent no. 3 is concerned, it has

been averted that the needle of suspicion is pointed

towards the private respondent no. 03 is also totally false

and frivolous. During investigation by the concerned

police official at Himachal Pradesh it has been found that

the cause of death of Mohd Tazeem S/o Mohd Shafi (son

in-law of respondent no. 3) is because of accident of JCB

machine and subsequent drowning. Closure report in this

regard is lying with the concerned Police Station Mendhar.

The petitioners are trying to project a case that because of

the so called rivalry, the FIR mentioned supra has been

 lodged against them, same is totally false and frivolous.

On this ground the instant petition is required to be

dismissed.

5. That the FIR lodged in P/S

Channi Himmat Jammu bearing No. 180 of 2023 is u/s

500, 504, 505, 506 and 509 of the IPC 1860 is based

upon cogent and concrete evidences. It is apt to mention

here that the petitioner 1 and 2 has openly advanced

threats to the respondent no. 03 and has passed

slanderous allegations against the wife of respondent No.

03 and has also assassinated the character of wife of

respondent no 3 by sending and circulating the offensive

voice messages on whatsapp. The respondent no 3 has

concrete evidence in the shape of voice recordings

preserved by him to prove the allegations. That the

petitioners are so fearless that they have sent the voice

recordings without thinking for a while the repercussions

of such unwarranted, uncalled and unlawful act of their

part. The averments projected by the petitioners in the

instant petition that the FIR is false and frivolous is out-

rightly denied. On this score alone, the instant petition is

required to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6. That the Honble Apex Court in

catena of judgments has time and again stated that

exercise of power under 482 CrPC shall be utilized with

 great caution and care and can be exercised sparingly

only in the extreme and rare cases. In the instant case,

the petitioners have openly threatened the respondent no.

3, tarnished the image and assassinate the character of

wife of respondent no.. 3 by sending him voice

message/recordings and they have gone to the extent of

circulating the same across the town as already

mentioned above and has also threatened the entire

family members of respondent no 3. The respondent no 3

has concrete evidences with him, in the shape of audio to

prove the offences alleged against the petitioner 1 and 2

beyond any shadow of doubt. On this score alone, the

instant petition is required to be dismissed.

7. That the petitioner has

committed cognizable offence which are of serious in

nature and required to be investigated so as to book the

culprits under the law. On this score alone, present

petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.

8. That the FIR lodged with Police

Station Mendhar bearing No. 218 of 2023 is based upon

different facts and circumstances and same has been

lodged by the wife of respondent no. 03 whereas the FIR

lodged in by the respondent no 03 is based upon the

threats advanced by the petitioner No. 01 and 02 by way

of voice messages are based upon different facts, both the

 FIRs have no remote connection. On this score alone the

instant petition is required to be dismissed.

Without prejudice to the foregoing preliminary

objections, para-wise reply is submitted as under -

1. In reply to the contents of para a,

it is submitted that the petitioners have alleged that

deceased Mohd Tazeem S/o Mohd Shafi was their nephew,

same is totally false and wrong, late Tazeem was having no

close relation with the petitioners and the respondent no 3

has never at any point of time had ever interfered with the

peaceful marital life of his daughter. Rest of content of para

with regard to the filing of protection petition bearing no.

2097 of 2021 is a matter of record hence needs no reply.

2. In reply to the contents of para b,

it is submitted that the inquest proceedings were initiated

with regard to the death of son in-law of respondent no. 3

by the concerned police officials having jurisdiction and in

the closure report the respondent no. 3 has come to know

from the concerned police officials that the death of the son

in-law of respondent no. 3 was caused due to the accident

of JCB Machine and subsequently drowning in the state of

Himachal Pradesh where he was working for his livelihood

at relevant point of time. Rest of the contents of para are

totally false and hence denied.

3. In reply to the contents of para c,

it is submitted that the respondent has never ever

pressurized her daughter or any other person at any point

of time. The allegations leveled in the said paras are totally

false and frivolous, hence denied.

4. In reply to the contents of para d,

it is submitted that the threats against the wife of the

complainant was advanced by the accused persons that

they would kill the wife as well as the entire family of

respondent no 3. They have also tried to outrage her

modesty. Despite of lodging the said FIR at Poonch, the

petitioners have not restrained themselves to advance the

threats rather they became more berserk and this time

they have advanced the threats openly without an fear and

respect of law and without thinking for a while the

repercussions of advancing the threats through Whatsapp

by way of voice messages and also circulating the same in

the entire area where they have uttered levied remarks

against the wife of respondent no. 3 as well as against the

respondent no. 03 and they have also threatened them for

dire consequences. The respondent no. 3 has preserved the

voice messages to prove the assertions. Pen-drive of the

voice messages sent to respondent No. 03 shall be

produced as and when this court requires demonstrating

 the fact that obscene, levied and outrageous remarks were

against the family members of respondent no. 3.

5. In reply to the contents of para e,

it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 is permanently

residing in Jammu and as such the respondent no. 3 has

every right conferred under law to lodge the FIR here at

Jammu in the Police station having the jurisdiction. It is

most respectfully submitted that the respondent no 3 has

prima facie strong evidences with him to prove the

allegations against the culprits herein petitioners at the

time of investigation.

PARAWISE REPLY TO THE GROUNDS.

a) In reply to the contents of para a of the instant

petition, it is most humbly submitted that the FIR No.

180 of 2023 lodged against the petitioners is based

upon cogent facts and the respondent no. 3 has

substantial evidences preserved by him to prove the

allegations leveled against the petitioners beyond the

shadows of reasonable doubt.

b) That the contents of para b are totally false hence

denied. It is relent to mention here that the death of

the son in-law of the respondent no. 3 has been

caused due to the ill fate accident of JCB and

subsequently drowning, same is already mentioned

supra.
c) That the contents of para c are wrong and hence

denied. It is submitted that both the FIRs are based

upon different set of allegations and the instant FIR

bearing no. 180 of 2023 lodged with Police Station,

Channi Himmat Jammu U/s 400, 500, 504, 505, 506,

509 and 109 IPC the veracity of which has been

challenged before this Honble Court. It is most humbly

submitted that the said FIR is based upon cogent

evidences which has been preserved by the respondent

no. 03 prima facie proves the allegations leveled

against the petitioners are true and authentic without

any iota of doubt.

d) That the contents of para d are totally false hence

denied. The complaint which is based upon cogent

evidences established without any iota of doubt that

the petitioners have committed the cognizable offences,

the section 509 IPC is cognizable in nature.

e) In reply to the contents of para e, it is submitted that

both the FIRs are based upon different facts and have

different set of allegations as such there is no question

of concealment of earlier FIR which is not challenged

by the petitioners. Moreover there is no bar under law

that multiple FIRs cannot be lodged for different cause

of action. The respondent no. 3 has every right to take

action against the petitioners for advancing the threats

 and passing the levied and derogatory remarks against

her wife and to prove this aspect the respondent no. 3

prima facie strong evidences with him.

f) That in reply to the contents of para f, it is most

humbly submitted that the offences committed by the

petitioners are very serious in nature and are required

to be investigated so as to punish the culprits as per

the mandate of law as they have openly challenged the

modesty of a women by passing such levied remarks

and circulating the same in the society causing a

havoc in the peaceful marital life of respondent no 3.

4) That the contents of para 4, need no reply.

5) That the contents of para 5 is a matter of record hence

need no reply.

IN THE PREMISES
It is most humbly prayed that keeping in view the above
mentioned facts and circumstances, the instant petition is
devoid of any merit deserves outright dismissal with exemplary
costs to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

RESPONDENT NO 3
THROUGH COUNSEL
Dated:
Place:

ACHAL SHARMA
ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF J&K AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU.

Basharat Hussain & Ors

…Petitioners
Versus

U.T of J&K through PS Home & Ors

…Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF: - AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF

OBJECTIONS.

I, Mohd Irshad, (Age 53 Years) S/o Mohd Bashir R/o

Pathanateer, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under -
1. That the accompanying reply/objections has been read over
and explained to me and the contents of the para No.____ to
____ of the reply are true and correct as per my knowledge
and those of para No.____ are true as per information
received from record and those of remaining paras ____ to
____ are bases on legal advice.
2. The deponent is the respondent No.3 in the above titled
petition, he is well versed with the facts and circumstances
of the case, and hence he is competent to swear the instant
affidavit.

I solemnly swear/affirm that the affidavit is true, no part

of this is false and nothing has been concealed.

Place:
Dated:

DEPONENT