Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Officer vs Neha Sharma on 5 August, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 685/2019
Reserved on: 24.07.2026
Pronounced on : 05.08.2026
Uploaded on : 05.08.2026
Operative part or full judgment: Full
Pardeep Sharma
S/O Sh. Lal Man
R/O W. No. 15 Patel Nagar, Kathua
Presently posted as Station House
Officer, Police Station, Akhnoor.
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.
V/S
1. Neha Sharma
W/O Sh. Vivek Sharma
D/O Sh. Sat Pal
R/O Ward No. 10, House No. 67,
Raja Bajar, Akhnoor
At present Muthi, Jammu.
2. Pardeep Sharma,
S/O Sh. Sat Pal,
R/O Muthi, Jammu.
.....Respondents
3. Sat Pal,
S/O Sh. Bishan Dass,
R/O Muthi, Jammu.
4. Rani Devi,
W/O Late. Bal Krishan,
R/O Ward No. 10, Akhnoor,
District Jammu.
5. Pawan Kumar,
S/O Late Bal Krishan,
R/O Ward No. 10, House No. 67,
Raja Bajaar, Akhnoor.
6. Raja,
S/O Late Sh. Bal Krishan,
R/O Ward No. 10, House No. 67,
Raja Bajaar, Akhnoor.
7. Shashi,
D/O Late Bal Krishan,
W/O Sh. Babu Ram,
R/O Village Kathar, Maira Mandrian,
Akhnoor.
8. Pooja,
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 1 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
D/O Late. Bal Krishan,
W/O Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
R/O Village Agore, Tehsil Bhalwal,
District Jammu.
9. Sudesh,
D/O Late Bal Krishan,
W/o Sh. Devi Dass,
R/o Janipur, Jammu.
10. Sonam,
S/O Sh. Babu Ram,
R/O Village Kathar, Maira Mandrian,
Akhnoor.
.....Proforma Respondents
Through:- None.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the above-
titled petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeks quashment
of criminal complaint titled ‘Neha Sharma & Ors Vs. SHO
Police Station, Akhnoor & Ors’ for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 182, 199, 200, 415, 420,
506 RPC and summoning order dated 25.09.2019 passed by
the learned Excise Magistrate, Jammu.
02. It is pleaded in the petition that at the instance of
respondent No. 1-Neha Sharma, a case was registered at Police
Station, Akhnoor vide FIR No. 18/2019 on 27.08.2019 for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
147, 504 & 506 RPC against the proforma respondents on the
directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu;
that proforma respondent No. 4-Rani Devi had moved an
application before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff),
Akhnoor, in terms of Section 156(3) CrPC for issuance of
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 2 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
directions to the SHO, Police Station, Akhnoor for registration
of FIR and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Akhnoor was
pleased to pass an order dated 31.08.2019, whereby the SHO,
Police Station, Akhnoor was directed to register an FIR and
conduct the investigation; that pursuant to the said order of
the learned Magistrate, another FIR No. 211/2019 was lodged
with Police Station, Akhnoor on 11.09.2019 for the
commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323,
506 RPC against the contesting respondents.
03. It is alleged that after registration of FIR, contesting
respondents have filed a criminal complaint before the court of
learned CJM, Jammu titled ‘Neha Sharma & Ors Vs. SHO
Police Station, Akhnoor & Ors’ for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 182, 199, 200, 415, 420,
506 RPC along with Section 120-B of RPC on various false and
frivolous facts, which was entertained and process was issued
against the accused including the petitioner herein, vide order
dated 25.09.2019 taking cognizance in the matter and
issuance of process.
04. The petitioner has challenged the summoning order
dated 25.09.2019, inter alia, on the grounds that the allegation
of registering of FIR No. 211/2019 against the respondents
without investigating the matter, if taken at its face value and
accepted in its entirety does not even ‘prima facie’ constitute
an offence or make out a case against the petitioner, for the
commission of any of the offences under Sections 182, 199,
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 3 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
200, 415, 420, 506/120-B RPC along with Section 120-B RPC;
that the allegation of the respondents against the petitioner is
that he has abused his official position by directly registering
the FIR, without conducting investigation, is untenable in law
in view of the fact that after the clear cut direction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Akhnoor, the petitioner was
bound to register the FIR and investigate the matter in
accordance with law; that the allegation of conducting the
investigation before registering the FIR is contrary to the
judicial order, in view of the fact that the police authorities can
ascertain about the commission of cognizable offences before
registration of the FIR, as genuineness and falsehood of the
case cannot be ascertained before registration of the FIR; that
the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned
summoning order had not recorded the statement of the
complainants and their witnesses under Section 200 CrPC, in
order to draw subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate
about the commission of offences; that as per Section 204 of
the CrPC, the trial court cannot issue the process unless the
list of witnesses is furnished to the court. Lastly, it has been
prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned
summoning order be quashed.
05. The respondents, despite service of notices upon
them, have chosen not to file objections to contest the petition
filed by the petitioner.
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 4 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
06. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused
the record and considered the matter.
07. The question which arises for consideration is
whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if
taken at their face value, disclose commission of any offence
by the petitioner and whether the impugned summoning order
passed by the learned Magistrate as against the petitioner,
suffers from legal infirmity warranting interference under
Section 482 CrPC.
08. It is a settled proposition of law that the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is meant to
prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of
justice. Where the allegations made in the complaint, taken in
their entirety, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences
alleged, the continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
09. In the present case, the foundational allegation
against the petitioner is that he, as SHO, Police Station,
Akhnoor, registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 211/2019
against the complainant, without conducting a prior inquiry or
investigation into the truthfulness of the allegations. The said
allegation, on the face of it, does not constitute any criminal
offence. The petitioner was acting in discharge of his official
duties pursuant to a specific judicial direction issued by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Akhnoor under Section 156(3)
CrPC. Once a competent Magistrate directed registration of an
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 5 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
FIR and investigation, the petitioner, as an officer in charge of
the police station, was legally bound to comply with such
direction.
10. The law does not require the police officer to
conduct a detailed investigation or adjudicate upon the
truthfulness of allegations before registration of an FIR relating
to a cognizable offence. The purpose of registration of FIR is to
set the criminal law into motion and the question regarding
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is to be examined
during the course of investigation. Therefore, the mere
registration of FIR pursuant to the order of a Magistrate
cannot, by itself, constitute any of the offences of cheating,
fraud, giving false information, or abuse of official position.
11. Further, the allegations necessary to constitute
offences under Sections 182, 199, 200, 415, 420 and 120-B
RPC are conspicuously absent from the complaint as against
the petitioner. There is no specific allegation demonstrating
that the petitioner furnished false information to any public
servant, made any false declaration, deceived any person, or
dishonestly induced anyone to deliver any property and/or
entered into a criminal conspiracy. Bald and general
allegations, without attribution of any criminal intent or
specific overt act, cannot form the basis for initiating criminal
prosecution.
12. The impugned summoning order also reflects non-
application of mind. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 6 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
issue process without recording sufficient satisfaction
regarding the existence of a ‘prima facie’ case against the
petitioner. The order does not disclose consideration of the
material placed before the Court or the ingredients of the
offences alleged against the petitioner.
13. It is also relevant to note that issuance of process
against a public servant for acts performed in the course of
official duties require greater circumspection. In the present
case, the act attributed to the petitioner is purely
administrative and statutory in nature, performed pursuant to
the order of a competent Court. Permitting criminal
proceedings against the petitioner to continue in such
circumstances would have the effect of discouraging public
officials from performing their lawful duties.
14. The allegations in the complaint, even if accepted in
their entirety, fail to disclose commission of any offence by the
petitioner. The continuation of proceedings arising out of such
complaint would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process
of the Court.
15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present case falls within the parameters
warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC., in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State
of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1992 SCC (Cri)
426.
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 7 of 8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2471
16. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The
complaint titled Neha Sharma & Ors. Vs. SHO Police Station,
Akhnoor & Ors. and the summoning order dated 25.09.2019
passed by the learned Excise Magistrate, Jammu, whereby the
petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offences under
Sections 182, 199, 200, 415, 420, 506 and 120-B RPC, are
hereby quashed, qua the petitioner.
17. The proceedings, if any, pending before the learned
trial Court against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid
complaint shall stand closed.
18. Disposed of, accordingly, along with
application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
05.08.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
…
CRM(M) No. 685/2019 Page 8 of 8
