Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jasmeet Singh vs Shafi Ahmed S/O Ghulam Nabi on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 1/2019
Reserved on: 27.02.2026
Pronounced on: 10.04.2026
Uploaded on: 10.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full judgment.
1. Jasmeet Singh,
Age 43 years S/O Man Singh R/O H. No.
200, Digiana Opposite Ashram Jammu
Presently posted as Branch Manager,
Kotranka, Rajouri Branch of Jammu and
Kashmir Bank Ltd.
2. Mohd. Shafi Salroo,
Age 57 years S/O Gh. Nabi Salroo R/O
Padshahi Colony, Bij Behara, Anantnag,
Kashmir
Presently posted as Zonal Head, Jammu
West Zone, Rajouri, The Jammu and
Kashmir Bank Ltd. Zonal Office
Muradpur, Tehsil and District Rajouri. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ajay K. Gandotra, Advocate.
Vs
1. Shafi Ahmed S/O Ghulam Nabi, Caste
Kashmiri R/o Ward No. 8, Tehsil
Rajouri. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Hussain Shah, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners (petitioner No. 1, the then Branch Manager, Kotranka,
Rajouri Branch of J&K Bank Ltd. and petitioner No. 2, Zonal Head,
Jammu West Zone, Rajouri of J&K Bank Ltd.) have filed the instant
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 1 of 6
petition for quashing the proceedings of the complaint No. 77/complaint,
titled “Shafiq Ahmed vs. Jasmeet Singh and another” as well as the order
dated 27.10.2018, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri
(for short “the trial court”) has issued the process against the petitioners
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420
RPC.
2. Quashing of the proceedings is sought on the ground that the learned trial
court erred in issuing process without first directing an investigation or
inquiry. The petitioners contend that the complaint is based on frivolous
and unsubstantiated allegations that do not warrant the initiation of
criminal proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are
public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of RPC, and as such,
they cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction from the competent
authority under Section 197 Cr. PC. He further submits that the learned
Magistrate ought to have directed an investigation instead of taking
cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners. It is also submitted
that the learned trial court has issued the process in utter disregard to the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case titled, „Pepsi
Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1994) 5 SCC
749.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted
that Section 197 of Cr. PC. is not applicable in the instant case, as such,
the petition is misconceived and further that it is the prerogative of the
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 2 of 6
Magistrate to either direct registration of FIR or to take cognizance and
issue process against the accused on the basis of complaint submitted by
the complainant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled, „State Bank of India
Anantnag vs. G. M. Jamsheed Dar’ JKJ Online 73149.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The record indicates that the respondent filed a complaint asserting that
petitioner No. 1, acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 2, took ₹2.50
lakhs from him on the promise of providing employment. The respondent
claims that his subsequent requests for the job were met with threats. He
further alleges that on 25.10.2018, after being called to the J&K Bank
Branch by petitioner No. 1, he was subjected to abusive language by both
petitioners.
7. Upon the filing of the complaint, the learned trial court recorded the
statements of the respondent and his witness, Ajaz-ul-Haq. On the basis of
said preliminary evidence, the learned trial court proceeded to issue
process against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the RPC.
8. The primary contention raised by the petitioners is that the criminal
proceedings are not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction as
mandated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the
petitioners, being public servants, are entitled to the protection afforded
under the said provision and, therefore, the learned Trial Court could not
have taken cognizance of the alleged offences without obtaining the
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 3 of 6
requisite sanction from the competent authority. The failure to obtain such
sanction, it is argued, vitiates the issuance of process against the
petitioners.
9. While the petitioners may fall within the definition of “public servants” as
contemplated under Section 21 of the RPC, Section 197 of the CrPC
specifically extends protection only to those who are not removable from
office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Consequently,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, as bank
employees, cannot invoke Section 197 as a shield against prosecution for
the aforementioned offences. This contention raised in this regard is,
therefore, rejected.
10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as State Bank of India
Anantnag vs. G. M. Jamsheed has observed as under:
“8. From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, it is
clear that an official of the bank may qualify to be a public
servant and for prosecuting such an official in connection with
offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, a
previous sanction has to be obtained but so far as prosecution of
officials of the bank in connection with offences under IPC/RPC
are concerned, no previous sanction is required.
11. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that the trial court ought to have
exercised its discretion to order an investigation under Section 156(3) or
an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. It is argued that, considering
the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, the issuance of process
without ordering such investigation or inquiry amounts to a procedural
impropriety.
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 4 of 6
12. The learned Magistrate chose to take cognizance under Section 190 CrPC
rather than directing an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. While
the choice of procedure is within the court’s discretion, the substance of
the complaint is fatally vague. Respondent relies solely on a bald
allegation that a payment of ₹2.5 lakhs was made ‘two months ago,’ yet he
fails to specify the exact date, time, or venue. Furthermore, the assertion
that petitioner No. 1 received the amount at the instance of petitioner No.
2 is entirely unsubstantiated, as the respondent has failed to disclose any
basis or source of knowledge for this assertion. Such bald and unsupported
assertions do not disclose any prima facie material, particularly against
petitioner No. 2. In view of these material omissions, the issuance of
process against the petitioners, who are bank officials, appears to be
unwarranted and premature.
13. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1994) 5
SCC 749, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court of India has held as under:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his
mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused.”
(emphasis added)
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 5 of 6
14. The record indicates that the learned trial court issued process against the
petitioners in a perfunctory manner. In cases involving public officials and
vague accusations, a Magistrate must exercise caution and circumspection.
In the present case, the learned Trial Court failed to address and clarify the
material ambiguities in the narrative put forth by the complainant and
proceeded to issue process without undertaking the necessary scrutiny to
test the veracity of the allegations. The issuance of process appears to have
been made in a routine manner rather than as a result of a reasoned
judicial determination based on the material placed on record.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned
order suffers from a fundamental lack of application of mind.
15. In light of these observations, the order dated 27.10.2018 is set aside as it
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. This Court, however, clarifies that
the proceedings in the complaint titled ‘Shafiq Ahmed v. Jasmeet Singh
and Another’ are not being quashed at this stage, allowing for a proper re-
evaluation of the matter by remitting the matter to the learned trial court
for passing fresh orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the
principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
„Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate‘(1994) 5 SCC 749.
16. Disposed of along with the connected application, if any.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
10.04.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
CRMC No. 1/2019 Page 6 of 6
Sahil Padha
2026.04.10 13:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document