Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abdul Majeed & Ors vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Serial No. 06 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026
Date of uploading: 17.02.2026
Abdul Majeed & Ors. ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Rameshwar P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate in CRM(M) No. 695/2021
Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocate in CRM(M) No. 781/2021
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DyAG
Inspector N. R. Thakur, Investigating Officer present in
person
Mr. Rameshwar P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate in CRM(M) No. 781/2021
Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocate in CRM(M) Nos. 975/2022 and
695/2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
13.02.2026
CRM (M) No. 695/2021
1. The petitioners, through the instant petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., seek quashment of FIR No. 198/2021 dated 12.10.2021
registered at Police Station Mandi for offences under Sections 354,
323 and 382 IPC, along with consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The case of the complainant, as reflected in the FIR, is that on the date
of occurrence, when she was alone at her residence, the petitioners
Page 1 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
forcibly entered her house, caught hold of her from her private parts, 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
tore her clothes and attempted to outrage her modesty. It is further
alleged that upon her raising hue and cry, the accused persons fled
from the spot after threatening to strip her naked and defame her in
case she encountered them again. It is also alleged that while fleeing,
they snatched her golden chain.
3. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to directions issued by the
Court of District Mobile Magistrate, Poonch under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency
found offences under Sections 354, 323 IPC to be made out. However,
offence under Section 382 IPC was found not substantiated and was
dropped. Instead, offence under Section 452 IPC was added in view of
the finding that the accused had committed house-trespass after
preparation for assault.
4. The petitioners contend that they have been falsely implicated in the
present case as a counterblast to a forgery case registered against the
husband of the complainant at the instance of petitioner No.1. It is
argued that the FIR is malicious and an abuse of process of law.
5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and perused the
material available on record. The complainant has reiterated the
allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before
the learned Judicial Magistrate. The investigation conducted does not
appear to be biased or tainted, particularly in view of the fact that
Section 382 IPC was dropped upon finding no supporting material.
Page 2 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
The Investigating Agency has applied its mind to the facts and 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
evidence collected during investigation.
6. At this stage, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is not required to embark upon appreciation of evidence
or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The allegations made in
the FIR and supported by the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences.
7. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, shall
stand vacated. Ordered accordingly.
CRM (M) No. 781/2021
1. Briefly stated, CRM (M) No. 781/2021 has been filed by the
petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, seeking quashment of FIR No. 209/2021
dated 28.10.2021 registered at Police Station Mandi under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 IPC.As per the FIR, the respondent,
Rashid Mehmood Lone, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner
Bashir Ahmed had obtained employment in the Police Department as a
Special Police Officer (SPO) under Belt No. 1038 and was posted at
Police Line, Poonch, on the basis of a fake 8th class certificate. It is
further alleged that on the strength of the said certificate, he was
appointed as Constable. The complaint led to registration of the FIR
upon verification from the Principal, Government Higher Secondary
School, Mandi, regarding Certificate No. 691 dated 27.09.2012
Page 3 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
purportedly issued in favour of Bashir Ahmed S/o Ghulam Mohd., R/o 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
Azama bad, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch.
2. According to the Investigating Officer, as reflected in the status report
of FIR No. 209/2021, the certificate bearing Serial No. 448 dated
26.06.1998 showing that the petitioner had passed the 8th class
examination appears to be forged. On that basis, the case was
registered. It is, however, stated that the petitioner had passed the 9th
class examination from Government Boys Higher Secondary School,
Mandi. The investigation is still in progress and certain statements
remain to be recorded. CRM (M) No. 781/2021 concerns allegations
relating to forgery and creation of a false document.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is
tainted inasmuch as while it alleges that the 8th class certificate dated
26.06.1998 is forged, it is admitted that the petitioner passed the 9th
class examination in the year 2012. It is contended by the other side,
that the question whether the petitioner had actually passed the 8th
class examination in 1998 and whether a certificate was duly issued is
a disputed question of fact requiring investigation. This Court, in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
4. Though the petitioner alleges that the case has been orchestrated with
mala fide intent, the fact remains that prima facie material has been
found by the police agency during investigation indicating fabrication
of a false document. The report dated 30.11.2021 of the Principal,
Government Higher Secondary School, Mandi, states that Bashir
Page 4 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
Ahmed S/o Ghulam Mohd. had not appeared in the 8th class 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
examination. It was argued that the certificate had been obtained from
Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Mandi, and therefore
verification should have been sought from that institution instead of
Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Mandi.
5. Be that as it may, the allegation is that Certificate No. 448 dated
26.06.1998 purportedly issued by the Principal, Government Higher
Secondary School, Mandi, Poonch, showing the petitioner to have
passed the 8th standard examination as a private candidate, is a fake
document. The petitioner is also stated to have furnished an affidavit
declaring that he had passed the Middle Standard Examination in the
year 1998 from Government Higher Secondary School, Mandi. Thus,
his claim of having passed the 8th class examination for the session
1998 is alleged to be founded on a fictitious document. These are
matters requiring investigation, and the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the proceedings initiated against him are actuated by
mala fide or oblique motives warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in CRM (M) No. 781/2021. The
petition is, therefore, dismissed and interim direction, if any, shall
stand vacated.
CRM (M) No. 975/2022
1. The petitioners, by way of the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., seek quashment of order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch (hereinafter referred to as
“the trial Court”), whereby cognizance has been taken for offences
Page 5 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
punishable under Sections 147, 451 and 323 IPC on the basis of a 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Parveen Akhter.
2. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the complaint in
question has been filed with mala fide intent at the instance of the
complainant’s husband, Bashir Ahmed, against whom petitioner No. 1
had sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding
his educational qualification, allegedly exposing the use of a forged
certificate for securing employment in the Police Department. It is
contended that, as a retaliatory measure, successive criminal
proceedings were initiated and as many as sixteen members of the
petitioners’ family were falsely implicated by making allegations of
unlawful assembly, trespass and assault in respect of an occurrence
dated 30.06.2020.
3. This Court has examined the complaint and the material placed on
record. It is evident that specific allegations have been leveled only
against four accused, namely Khurshid Ahmed, Riyaz Ahmed,
Khaleda Akhter and Gulnaz Akhter. The remaining petitioners have
been arrayed as accused without attribution of any specific overt act.
The allegations against them are omnibus and general in nature,
lacking essential particulars necessary to sustain criminal prosecution.
It is also noteworthy that similar allegations in a prior FIR, including
the alleged snatching of earrings, were found to be false during
investigation, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of repeated
assertions against the entire family.
Page 6 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
4. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
and cannot be undertaken in a mechanical manner. The order taking
cognizance must reflect due application of mind to the material
available on record. In the present case, the impugned order does not
indicate such individualized consideration insofar as the petitioners,
other than the four specifically named accused, are concerned.
5. The scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well
settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal 1992 Supp (1) 335 has delineated categories of cases where
criminal proceedings may be quashed, including instances where
allegations are manifestly attended with mala fide or where the
complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence against
particular accused persons. Similarly, in Kahkashan Kausar v. State
of Bihar Cr Appeal No.195 of 2022, the Apex Court cautioned against
the tendency to implicate all family members on the basis of vague and
omnibus allegations without specific role attribution.
6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the considered view that while the complaint prima facie
discloses allegations warranting trial against Khurshid Ahmed, Riyaz
Ahmed, Khaleda Akhter and Gulnaz Akhter, continuation of
proceedings against the remaining petitioners would amount to abuse
of the process of law.
7. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated
01.07.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, is
quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioners against whom no
Page 7 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
specific and individualized allegations have been made. The 2026:JKLHC-JMU:389
proceedings shall, however, continue against Khurshid Ahmed, Riyaz
Ahmed, Khaleda Akhter and Gulnaz Akhter in accordance with law.
8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU:
13.02.2026
Akhil Dev
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? NoPage 8 of 8 CRM(M) No. 975/2022
c/w
CRM(M) No. 695/2021
CRM(M) No. 781/2021
