Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Veenu Khanna vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 3 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
JAMMU
Reserved on: 04.06.2026
Pronounced on: 03.07.2026
Uploaded on: 03.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
CRM(M) No.469/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024
PARDEEP KHANNA & ORS.
VEENU KHANNA ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, GA.
Mr. Sunil Sehti, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate.
Mr. Sumit Nayyar (R4 in person)
Mr. Aseem Sahney, Advocate.
Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) By this common judgment, the afore-titled two
petitions bearing CRM(M) No 469/2024 and CRM(M)
No.525/2024 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging
FIR No.57/2024 for offences under Sections 447, 353, 332,
225, 147 and 149 of the IPC, and Section 3 of the Public
Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 registered with
Police Station Bakshi Nagar, are proposed to be disposed of.
CRM(M) No.469/2024 has been filed by petitioners Pardeep
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 1 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
Khanna, Rajeshwar Khanna, Parth Khanna and Aditya
Khanna, whereas CRM(M) No.525/2024 has been filed by
petitioner Veenu Khanna.
2) During the pendency of these petitions, the petitioners
moved applications bearing CrlM Nos.315/2026 and
314/2026 seeking amendment of the petitions. The said
applications were allowed vide order dated 24.03.2026,
pursuant to which the petitioners incorporated the relief
relating to challenge to order dated 30.12.2024 passed by
the learned Forest Magistrate, Jammu, whereby their
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking
registration of FIR against the private respondents was
dismissed.
3) It is alleged in the impugned FIR that an application
came to be filed by respondent No.2, on the basis of which
police of Police Post Sarwal called the petitioners for
questioning, but they launched an attack upon the police
party and when the police officials tried to pacify them, the
petitioners raised hue and cry and attacked one of the police
officials. Thereafter, the petitioner-Pardeep Khanna was
taken into custody and he was booked under Section
107/151 of Cr. P. C. The other petitioners fled away from the
spot. It is further alleged that the other petitioners, along
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 2 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
with 100-150 persons, gathered around Police Post, Sarwal,
broke open the gate of the Police Post and thereafter
launched an attack upon the Police Post. The assailants took
photographs and videographs and gave a severe beating to
ASI Mohd. Shaheen and other police officials, thereby
causing serious injuries to them. Thus, offences under
Section 447-A, 353, 323, 225, 149 and 149 of IPC and
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
were found disclosed against the petitioners.
4) The stand of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that
on 04.05.2024 at about 08.39 AM, the brother of respondent
No.2 along with respondent No.3 and six more constables
came to the house of the petitioners and they brought them
to Police Post, Sarwal, where respondent No.3 used a very
derogatory tone against the petitioners and physically
abused petitioner Pardeep Khanna. It has been further
alleged that respondent No.3 directed the constables to beat
the petitioners, whereupon petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4
managed to escape but respondent No.3, along with his
constables, physically assaulted petitioner No.3 and lodged
him behind the bars. In this regard, the petitioners
approached the Court of learned Forest Magistrate with an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C, in which an
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 3 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
order came to be passed by the said Court on 21.05.2024,
directing the Incharge P/S Bakshi Nagar, to verify the
allegations made in the complaint and if cognizable offence
is made out, to proceed in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
It seems that a series of status reports were called by the
learned Magistrate from SHO, P/S Bakshi Nagar and
ultimately, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2024, the
proceedings were closed.
5) The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on
the grounds that the same is fabricated and it has been
lodged only with a view to harass them and to create a
defence for the alleged illegal acts committed by the private
respondents. It has been contended that the case of the
petitioners squarely falls within the parameters laid down by
the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
1992 Suppl (1) SCCC 335, for quashment of an FIR. It has
been contended that the CCTV footage of the incident, which
has been placed on record, clearly shows that the petitioners
were unnecessarily called to the police station and they were
beaten up by the respondents and other police officials
present over there, without any rhyme and reason. It has
further been contended that because the impugned FIR has
been lodged with a view to wreak vengeance upon the
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 4 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
petitioners, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to go beyond
the contents of the FIR and read in between lines. It has been
also contended that there are serious gaps and infirmities in
the story projected by the police in the impugned FIR which
clearly goes on to show that the contents of the impugned
FIR are absolutely false and frivolous.
6) Regarding the impugned order passed by the learned
Magistrate, it has been contended that the same is not in
accordance with law as the learned Magistrate has ignored
the statements of the eyewitnesses and that it was obligatory
upon the learned Magistrate to direct registration of FIR as
the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclosed
cognizable offences.
7) To support of the contentions raised in the petitions,
learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Salib alias
Shalu alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2023)
20 SCC 194; Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947; and Sajal Bose v.
State of West Bengal and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
525.
8) The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted
that the content of the impugned FIR clearly disclose
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 5 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
commission of cognizable offences and after investigation of
the case, the said allegations have been substantiated by the
material collected by the investigating agency. Therefore,
this Court cannot undertake a mini-trial to go into the
veracity of the allegations made in the impugned FIR and to
test the reliability or otherwise of the material collected by
the investigating agency. It has been contended that power
of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C is limited and
the present petitions cannot be converted into a mini-trial.
9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
10) Before dealing with the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the legal
position as regards the power of the Court to quash criminal
proceedings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr. P. C.
11) In its celebrated judgment delivered in the case of State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Supreme Court has illustrated the circumstances in which
the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal
proceedings. The same are reproduced as under:
i) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at theirCRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 6 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
ii) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
iv) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party; and,
vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.
12) The Supreme Court and various High Courts of the
Country have consistently followed the aforesaid ratio laid
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 7 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
down in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra). Recently, the Supreme
Court has, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani‘s case (supra),
after noticing the legal position on the issue, laid down the
steps that should ordinarily determine the veracity of the
prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Court under Section 420 of the Cr.
P. CRPC. The relevant extracts of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material
is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/
complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot
be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to
quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such
exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused,
would save precious court time, which would otherwise
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused. (See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan
Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013).
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 8 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
13) With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now
proceed to determine the merits of the contentions raised in
these petitions seeking quashment of the impugned FIR. It
is the contention of the petitioners that they were called by
the police to the police station without any justification and
they were thrashed over there by the police officials and the
private respondents. It is their contention that the impugned
FIR is just a shield projected by the respondents to their
illegal actions. The petitioners, to support their contention,
have placed heavy reliance upon the CCTV footage of the
incident, which has been placed on record. It has been
contended that the Supreme Court in the case of Sajal Bose
(supra) has held that, while exercising power under Section
482 of Cr. P. C, CCTV footage can be relied upon by the High
Court for the purpose of ascertaining truth behind the
allegations made by the prosecution.
14) A perusal of the impugned FIR clearly discloses
commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. If
we have a look at the contents of the impugned FIR, it is
specifically alleged that the petitioners ransacked the police
station, they gave a beating to police officials and they also
forcibly rescued one of the petitioners from the lockup. These
allegations are supported by the statements of witnesses
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 9 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
recorded during the investigation of the case. The medical
report of injured police officials shows that they have
received injuries. The photographs showing damage to the
building of the police station and the photographs showing
a mob of people trying to forcibly enter the police station are
all part of the Case Diary. Thus, there is sufficient material
on record of the case to show that the allegations made in
the impugned FIR are well founded. Hence it cannot be
stated that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are
not supported by the material collected by the investigating
agency.
15) So far as the recording of the CCTV footage placed on
record by the petitioners is concerned, the veracity of the
same cannot be determined by this Court in these
proceedings. In Sajal Bose‘s case (supra), the Court was
dealing with CCTV footage filed by the prosecution along
with the charge sheet before the trial court. It was a material
the veracity of which was admitted by the prosecution. In the
present case, the charge sheet is yet to be filed and the
veracity of CCTV footage is yet to be ascertained by the
investigating agency. So, it is not an admitted material of
sterling quality on which this Court can place reliance in
these proceedings. Therefore, the requirement of very first
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 10 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
step as laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani‘s case
(supra) is not satisfied in the present case. The impugned
FIR, as such, cannot be quashed as the same would amount
to stifling a genuine prosecution, which is impermissible in
law.
16) There is, however, yet another aspect of the matter
which is required to be noticed. The petitioners allege that
they were beaten up by the police along with the private
respondents. It is being alleged that the petitioners were
unnecessarily dragged to the police station as there was
some money transaction between one of the petitioners and
one of the private respondents. It has been alleged that
respondent No.2, the then in charge of the police post,
Sarwal, was having friendly relations with private
respondents and for this purpose, he was trying to
pressurize the petitioners to pay the money to private
respondents. In this regard, the petitioners had lodged a
complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C with learned
Forest Magistrate, Jammu.
17) It appears that the learned Forest Magistrate has not
dealt with the aforesaid complaint of the petitioners strictly
in accordance with the law. The petitioners, in their
complaint, had given a counter version of the occurrence,
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 11 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
which was subject matter of the impugned FIR. If the learned
Magistrate did not find any substance in the allegations
made in the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C, it
was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to decide the
said complaint with a reasoned order. Instead of doing so,
the learned Magistrate closed the proceedings vide his
impugned order dated 30.12.2024 by stating that
application of the complainants was only for calling status
report from the concerned police station and once the status
report has been filed, no further proceedings are to be taken
in the matter.
18) I am afraid the approach adopted by the learned
Magistrate is not in accordance with law. The very first order
passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint of the
petitioners was in the nature of a direction to SHO, Police
Station, Bakshi Nagar, to verify the allegations made in the
complaint and if cognizable offence is made out, to proceed
in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. Thereafter, it
seems, status reports were submitted by the SHO before the
learned Magistrate and the petitioners also filed their protest
petition against the report submitted by SHO Police Station,
Bakshi Nagar. Without dealing with the objections raised by
the petitioners in their protest petition, it was not open to
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 12 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
the learned Magistrate to close the proceedings by remaining
satisfied with the status reports filed by the S.H.O. Without
dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by the
petitioners in their protest petition, the proceedings could
not have been closed by the learned Magistrate.
19) The aforesaid approach of the learned Magistrate has
led to a situation where the counter version of the occurrence
projected by the petitioners has remained uninvestigated. It
is permissible in law to register two FIRs in respect of the
same incident on the basis of rival versions projected by the
opposing parties involved in the incident. It was also open to
the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences on
the basis of the material that may have been placed by the
petitioners/complainants before him or even to close the
proceedings but only after recording reasons for doing so.
Having omitted to adopt any of the aforenoted options, the
learned Magistrate has failed to exercise his jurisdiction
properly. The impugned order passed by the learned
Magistrate is, therefore, not sustainable in law.
20) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the
petitions are partly allowed. While dismissing the petitions
to the extent of challenge to the impugned FIR, the petitions
to the extent of challenge to order dated 30.12.2024 passed
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 13 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1898
by the learned Magistrate, are allowed and the said order is
set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate
with the direction to revive the complaint filed by petitioners
under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C and to pass appropriate
fresh orders thereon in the light of what has been discussed
hereinbefore.
21) The Case Diary be returned to learned counsel for
official respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
03.07.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO
CRM(M) No.469/2024 c/w
CRM(M) No.525/2024 Page 14 of 14
