The Mandamus was dismissed as not enough evidence was produced before the court and no proof was shown even after framing the respondent under section 452/323 RPC: High court of Jammu and Kashmir
Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do a required act which according to the law are obliged to do, and which is like public duty, and in certain cases one of statutory duty. Since the respondent is charged under SECTIONS 45/323 RPC. According to the Ranbir penal code, section 452 states that House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Section 451 states House-trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment and section 323 states that Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. This judgement was given by the hon’ble Mrs Justice Sindhu Sharma in the high court of Jammu and Kashmir, at Jammu in the case, Shabina Nazmi V/s union territory of J&K &ORS WP© NO. 280/2020 and CM NO. 526/2020. A case where mandamus is being requested by the petitioner by directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri to let her compromise in a challan (No. 138/2010) where the respondent has been charged under sections 452/323 RPC (Ranbir penal code) i.e., the criminal code in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to this case, the petitioner being the wife of the respondent’s brother requested for a mandamus that would direct the chief judicial magistrate, Rajouri to allow her to compromise in a challan no. 138/2010. The petitioner filed an FIR NO.355 on the 22nd of November 2009, regarding section 452/323 which is yet to be dismissed by the chief judicial magistrate, Rajouri, it is still pending disposal. The petitioner was seeking relief and requested to direct the judicial magistrate to entertain the application annexed with a compromise agreement and allowing her to compromise as well. The drawback was that the petitioner failed to submit enough documents as evidence that would have supported the framed charge. The petitioner also failed to produce the order of rejection of the application and the order of the trial court was not submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner in the compromise agreement, the challan was produced under section 451/323 RPC. But there was no evidence to prove that it involves an offence under section 452 RPC, this charge has been framed regarding section 452 RPC. The offences under section 451 RPC according to the agreement is compoundable with the permission of the court. However, doubt is present whether the petitioner has approached the court with an application requesting the court’s permission for compounding the offences.
In conclusion, The court held that without the order of the trial court an instant petition cannot be entertained, the writ petition under section 266 of the constitution of India is also not maintainable in this case. Given the court “there is no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner, however, may approach the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri for seeking permission of the Court for compromise.”