Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Vivek Batra vs Union Territory Through Police on 12 March, 2026
Serial No. 101
Suppl. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 122/2026 CrlM (291/2026)
Vivek Batra
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Sr. Advocate (virtually) with
Mr. Danish Majid, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory Through Police
Station Rajbagh And Another
...Respondent(s).
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
12.03.2026
1. Issue notice to the respondents in the main as well as in the interim
application returnable by the next date of hearing, subject to taking of
steps for service within a period of two weeks for filing of
reply/objections.
2. Heard Mr. A.M. Dar, ld. Sr. Advocate (virtually) in respect of his
prayer for grant of relief in the interim application bearing No. CrLM
No. 291/2026.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that case FIR No. 1/2026
dated 08.01.2026 came to be registered with the Police Station, Rajbagh
Srinagar under Sections 62, 64, 74, 115(2), 324(4), 326(g), 333 and
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, on the basis of
false, frivolous and distorted facts. He contended that the impugned FIR
on its plain reading and in the backdrop of the admitted circumstances
preceding its registration, is ex facie mala fide, illegal, unsustainable and
implicitly actuated by ulterior motives with an attempt to convert a
subsisting civil and possession dispute into a coercive criminal
prosecution of the gravest kind so as to put pressure on the petitioner to
compromise his legitimate/legal rights.
4. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a
Retired Commissioner of Income Tax and a law abiding citizen of India
who after retirement has engaged himself in legitimate entrepreneurial
activity through various corporate entities including Waahkashmir
Hospitality Private Limited, in the sectors of hospitality, tourism and
allied services in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. That in or
around April 2025, he, through the said company, entered into an
arrangement with the private respondent in respect of one villa forming
part of premises situated at 151, Toshkhani Niwas, Rajbagh, Srinagar,
for use as office-cum-residential premises in connection with the
company’s business. That acting upon the representation of the private
respondent he was competent to create such arrangement, he paid
advance money on 14.04.2025 and entered into peaceful possession on
15.04.2025, shifted his office operations, installed staff, furniture,
fixtures and equipment, and incurred substantial expenditure on
renovation and adaptation of the premises. That though a draft rent
agreement dated 23.04.2025 was exchanged and the arrangement was
acted upon, the private respondent subsequently began evading formal
execution of the lease documentation and sought to create uncertainty
regarding title and authority, despite having already placed him in
possession.
That as the disputes regarding possession and formalization of the
tenancy arrangement escalated, his company was constrained to institute
civil proceedings before the competent court at Srinagar. That in those
proceedings, the learned Commercial Court / Additional District Judge
granted an order of status quo on 01.08.2025 protecting his possession.
That even after the said proceedings later encountered a jurisdictional
impediment, he promptly approached the proper forum and obtained yet
another order of status quo from the learned 3rd Additional District
Judge, Srinagar on 11.12.2025. That well before registration of the
impugned FIR, the dispute between the parties had already entered the
judicial realm and the issue of possession over the subject premises had
become sub judice. That the existence of these civil proceedings and the
subsisting protective orders form the central backdrop against which the
impugned FIR must be examined.
The ld. Counsel further contended that as specifically pleaded in
the petition, the petitioner, throughout 2025, repeatedly approached the
police and other authorities complaining of interference, intimidation,
threats and disruptive conduct on the part of the private respondent and
his wife, including incidents of misbehavior with female staff members
working at the premises. That the written complaints and
communications were addressed to the police authorities in May, June,
July, September and November 2025, yet no meaningful action was
taken. That it is the consistent case of the petitioner that despite being
placed on notice of the escalating civil discord and threats faced by him
and his staff, the local police remained inactive, only to swing into
motion when the private respondent, after the grant of civil protection in
his favour, lodged the impugned complaint on 08.01.2026. That the
allegations in the impugned FIR are of an extreme and sensational
nature. That they allege, inter alia, that on 08.01.2026 he, along with
others, arrived armed with iron rods, hammers and tools, broke open the
gate and locks, trespassed into the residential portion of the premises,
assaulted members of the household, molested the complainant’s wife,
attempted sexual assault, extended threats and sprinkled petrol with an
attempt to set the premises ablaze.
That the petitioner categorically denies the occurrence in the
manner alleged and asserts that the accusations are wholly false, grossly
exaggerated and deliberately framed so as to attract the harshest penal
provisions for the sole purpose of securing immediate arrest, public
humiliation and an upper hand in the underlying property dispute. That
the chronology pleaded in the petition unmistakably demonstrates that
the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the civil proceedings and an effort
to accomplish through criminal process what the private respondent
could not secure in civil law. That the petition further highlights that he
was not absconding or evading process. That he was contacted by the
police, disclosed his whereabouts, cooperated with the authorities and
yet was subjected to coercive action in a manner suggestive of pre-
determined intent rather than fair investigation.
The ld. Senior Counsel further contended that it is specifically
pleaded that the alleged incident dated 08.01.2026 was
contemporaneopaly video recorded by him and certain co-accused
present at the spot, precisely to safeguard against false allegations in the
setting of the ongoing dispute. That the said recording preserved in a pen
drive and available for production before this Court as and when
directed, is stated to be a contemporaneous and unedited electronic
record within the meaning of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023,
and is asserted to completely belie the prosecution version. That the
Petition also points out that the CCTV footage from and around the
premises, which would have been the best independent evidence of the
alleged occurrence, was neither properly secured nor fairly brought on
record by the investigating agency, despite an application having been
moved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking preservation
of such footage. That the withholding or non-collection of the best
available electronic evidence, according to him, itself betrays the
infirmity of the prosecution case.
That the Petition also refers to his judicial remand, the bail
proceedings and the prosecution report filed during the remand /bail
stage, and asserts that the material placed by the investigating agency is
replete with embellishments and is reflective of an attempt to build an
aggravated criminal narrative upon a dispute that is essentially civil in
nature. That the continuance of the impugned FIR, would therefore
amount to permitting the criminal law to be weaponized for collateral
purposes, resulting in grave prejudice to his liberty, reputation and legal
rights. That he invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 BNSS on the well-settled principle that where the criminal
process is manifestly attended with mala fides, where the allegations are
inherently improbable, where the foundational facts do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged, and where the criminal
proceeding is plainly a device to settle private scores arising out of a
civil dispute, the Court is duty bound to interdict such abuse of process
at the threshold. He contended that the present case, as pleaded, falls
squarely within the parameters recognized in the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the
subsequent line of authorities on quashment jurisdiction.
5. Perused the interim application supported with an affidavit.
6. It has been averred in the application that applicant/petitioner has
got a strong prima facie case made out in his favor who is sure to
succeed at the proceedings of the petition. That the petitioner shall suffer
an irreparable loss in case he is not protected at this initial stage.
7. Also perused the main petition and the copies of documents
enclosed with the same as annexures thereto.
8. List on 27th April, 2026.
9. In the meantime, subject to any vacation/modification upon the
consideration of objections/arguments of the other side and till next date
of hearing, the respondent No. 1 i.e. Station House Officer, Police
Station Rajbagh Srinagar is directed that, while being at liberty to
proceed with the investigation in the impugned case FIR No. 1/2026
dated 08.01.2026 registered with his Police Station, he shall however
await the orders of this Court regarding the presentation of final
report/challan in terms of Section 193 BNSS, if any,
contemplated/warranted in the backdrop of the investigation.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
12.03.2026
Shahid Manzoor