Mohammad Shafi Reshi vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 19 May, 2026

    0
    28
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Mohammad Shafi Reshi vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 19 May, 2026

    Author: Sanjeev Kumar

    Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                         Sr. No. 24
    
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT SRINAGAR
                     (Through virtual mode)
    
                                                  CrlA (D) 85/2024
                                                  CrlM No. 1768/2024
    
    
    
    Mohammad Shafi Reshi                                               appellant
    
                                 Through :- Mr. B.A.Dar Advocate.
    
                              V/s
    
    UT of Jammu and Kashmir and ors                            .....Respondent(s)
    
                                 Through :- Mr. Mohsin Qadri Sr. AAG with
                                            Ms. Maha Majeed Advocate.
    
    Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
    
                                     ORDER
    

    1 In this appeal filed by the appellant Mohd. Shafi Reshi under

    Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 [“NIA Act“],

    SPONSORED

    he seeks to challenge an order dated 31.08.2024 passed in R. No. 90/2023

    titled State through SHO Police Station Khaniyar vs. Syed Ali Shah

    Geelani (dead) and others (FIR No. 84/2009 offences under Section 13

    UAP Act and Section 188 RPC) passed by the learned Additional Sessions

    Judge, Special Judge, designated under NIA Act, Srinagar [“the trial

    Court”] whereby the trial Court has framed charge against the appellant

    along with others for an offence under Section 13 of UAP Act.

    2 The impugned order is challenged by the appellant primarily

    on the ground that the trial Court has framed the charge without

    appreciating that there is no allegation against the appellant with regard to

    commission of any act or omission which would constitute an offence

    under Section 13 of UAP Act.

    2

    3 Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the

    respondents, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of

    this appeal filed under Section 21 of the NIA Act on the ground that the

    order framing charge passed by a Special Court under the NIA Act is an

    interlocutory order not appealable under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act. He

    has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in a

    case of Ayaz Ahmad and another vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir,

    2023 (6) JKJ 423.

    4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

    material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the preliminary

    objection taken by Mr. Qadri, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the

    respondents, to the maintainability of this appeal deserves to be sustained.

    In the case of Ayaz Ahmad and another (supra), a Division Bench of this

    Court has elaborately considered this question in the light of Section 21 of

    the NIA Act and has, after taking note of the case law on the subject, held

    that the order framing charge passed by a Special Court under the NIA

    Act is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not appealable under Section

    21(1) of the NIA Act. We see no reason or justification to take a view

    contrary to the one taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

    5 In view of the above, this appeal is held not maintainable.

    6 At this stage, Mr. B.A. Dar, learned counsel appearing for the

    appellant, prayed in the alternative that this appeal be treated as a petition

    under Section 482 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the

    BNSS.

    3

    7 Having gone through the memorandum of appeal, we find

    that the order framing of charge by the trial Court has been challenged by

    the appellant purely on merits. The averments made in the memorandum

    of appeal do not meet the parameters to be taken into consideration by this

    Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482

    of CrPC corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS. Going by the nature of

    the pleadings before us in this appeal, it would be difficult for us to accede

    to the request of learned counsel for the appellant to treat this appeal as a

    petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of

    the BNSS.

    8 For all the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed as

    not maintainable. We, however, reserve liberty to the appellant to file a

    quashment petition under Section 482 of CrPC corresponding to Section

    528 of BNSS afresh by pleading appropriate grounds of challenge to the

    order impugned.

                              (SANJAY PARIHAR)               SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                          JUDGE                   JUDGE
    
              Jammu
              19.05.2026
              Sanjeev               Whether the order is speaking:        Yes
                                    Whether the order is reportable:      Yes/No
    
    
    
    
    Sanjeev Kumar
    2026.05.21 11:25
    I am the author of this
    document
    



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here