Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.K. Hanjura

ORDER

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. In this petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek the indulgence of this Court in quashing the FIR bearing No. 78 of the year 2013, registered against them at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, for the commission of offences under Sections 426, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 of the RPC.

2. Before appreciating and looking into the merits of the petition, it will be profitable to give a brief account of the facts and the grounds that forced the petitioners to file this petition. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 are in possession of a house bearing No. 20 situate at 2nd Extn. Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The land underneath and appurtenant to the house, measures one Kanal approximately. The petitioner No. 1 is legally competent to sell the said house for being the lawful attorney of the owner, named, Pardeep Jain. The respondent No. 3 who is a businessman approached the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 for the purchase of the aforesaid house. The petitioner No. 1 agreed to sell it for a consideration of Rs. 2.60 Crores. It was further decided on 01.04.2012 that the amount of Rs. 2.60 Crore will be paid within a period of three months from the said date. The respondent No. 3 issued a cheque dated 03.04.2012 amounting to Rs. 10.00 Lac in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and two cheques dated 03.04.2012 and 11.06.2012 amounting to Rs. 10.00 Lac and Rs. 13.00 Lac respectively in favour of Champa Devi, i.e., the petitioner No. 3. The cheques given to the petitioner No. 3, were encashed but the respondent No. 3 stopped the payment of the cheques delivered to the petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, the parties decided that if the payment as decided is not made within the stipulated time, the advance so paid shall be forfeited. The respondent No. 3 did not make the payment thereafter owing to some financial crunch. He avoided the execution of the deed and the deal on one pretext or the other. The petitioner No. 1 requested the respondent No. 3 a number of times to pay him the balance amount of Rs. 2.37 Crore and get the sale deed executed but the respondent No. 3 did not pay any heed to him and the petitioner No. 1 thought that the respondent No. 3 has lost interest in the property. The respondent No. 2 working as Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, threatened the petitioner No. 1 to return the advance money to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 illegally confined the petitioner No. 1 in the police Station for a period of three days without lodging any F.I.R. The petitioner No. 1 was taken into the custody on 06.02.2013 and was released from the custody on 08.02.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 received continuous threats from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, the petitioner did not succumb to these threats. He moved a representation (Annexure-A attached to the petition) before the IGP Jammu on 22.02.2013 in which he detailed the illegalities committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The IGP Jammu Zone took cognizance of the issue and transferred the investigation of the case to SDPO Gandhi Nagar Jammu. The SDPO, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter. In addition to recording the statement of the petitioner No. 1, he recorded the statements of Romesh Lal Additional SHO Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, and those of a few police officers posted at Gandhi Nagar Police Station. He found that the case is of civil nature and the police cannot investigate the same. He also recommended that a criminal case be lodged against the respondent No. 2 for having illegally confined the petitioner No. 1 in police custody. The contents of the report so laid are known to the police authorities. It is a clear case of the abuse of the official position by the respondent No. 2 and the violation of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ........