FIR Not Appropriate Remedy For Addressing Disobedience Of Injunction Order, Recourse Under O.39 R.2A CPC Applicable : J&K High Court

In quashing an FIR arising out from a civil dispute Justice Javed Iqbal Wani explained that Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC exists to enforce court orders, not punish violations vindictively. Since the purpose is corrective, the trial court cannot order an FIR for disobeying an injunction order, he underlined.

“.. the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are to be exercised without there being any element of vindictiveness therein as the said provision is curative in nature with a purpose to ensure that order passed by the courts are implemented and disobedience is remedied”, the bench remarked.

The case involved a civil dispute over immovable property in Kupwara. Respondent Ghulam Mohammad Lone, filed a civil suit against the Petitioners/defendants in which an interim order of status quo was initially passed by the Sub Judge Kupwara. This order was later modified allowing the defendants to continue construction/repair of the disputed property.

Dissatisfied with this modification, Lone appealed to the Principal District Judge, Kupwara. The appellate court allowed the defendants to construct on their land but required an undertaking that any construction would be at their own risk, without compensation if the plaintiff succeeded.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of an FIR against the defendants, alleging violations of the court orders. The Sub Judge/JMIC Kupwara directed the police to register an FIR against the defendants for offenses under Sections 188, 427, and 447 of the IPC.

The petitioners contended that the FIR and the trial court's order were attempts to criminalize a civil dispute and were based on misrepresented facts. They argued that the elements of the alleged offenses did not exist and that the trial court should have proceeded under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for any disobedience of court orders.

The official respondents opposed the petition, stating that the FIR was registered based on the trial court's directions. They maintained that the investigation had begun before the petitioners approached the High Court, resulting in a stay of the investigation.

Justice Wani meticulously reviewed the case history and observed that the litigation between the parties centered on immovable property. He noted that various interim orders had been issued, including one from the appellate court on June 7, 2017 whereby directions for registration of an FIR had been passed.

Justice Wani observed,

“… the petitioners herein have been violating the said order rendering them liable for prosecution in which application, admittedly the trial court without issuing notice to the non-applicants therein petitioners herein inasmuch as instead of proceeding against them in terms of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for disobedience and breach of an injunction proceeded to direct respondent 2 straightaway to register the FIR against the petitioners herein, whereupon the respondent 2 registered the impugned FIR”.

Emphasising that Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is designed to ensure compliance with court orders and maintain the authority of the judiciary Justice Wani highlighted that the trial court, instead of following the procedure under Order 39 Rule 2-A for any breach of injunction, erroneously directed the registration of an FIR without issuing notice to the petitioners.

Reiterating the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC which enable the High Court to quash an FIR that constitutes an abuse of the judicial process the court underscored that judicial proceedings should not be used as tools for harassment or persecution.

In alignment with these observations the petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Sub Judge/JMIC Kupwara, as well as FIR were quashed.

Case Title: Ghulam Mohiudin Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 190

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment