Sanjana Katoch vs Balbir Singh Katoch & Ors on 7 July, 2026

    0
    6
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Sanjana Katoch vs Balbir Singh Katoch & Ors on 7 July, 2026

                                                             Supplementary List-1
                                                                 Serial No. 70
    
    
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
    
    CRM(M) No. 680/2026
    
    Sanjana Katoch
                                                                         ..... Petitioner
    
                         Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                                  Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Advocate
                                  Mr. Manhar Mahajan, Advocate
                   Vs
    
    Balbir Singh Katoch & Ors.
    
                                                                      .....Respondents
    
                         Through:
    
    CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                ORDER
    

    (07.07.2026)

    01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, filed under Section 528

    SPONSORED

    of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, seeks

    quashment of the complaint titled “Balbir Singh Katoch Vs. Union

    Territory & Others” filed by the respondent No. 1-Balbir Singh

    Katoch, against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable

    under Sections 82(1) and 82(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS),

    2023, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including

    an order dated 27.12.2025 passed therein by the court of learned Judicial

    Magistrate, (Sub-Judge), Jammu, thereby taking the cognizance of the

    said complaint and issuance of process against the petitioner.

    02. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

    respondent No. 1-Balbir Singh Katoch, filed an application seeking

    direction to the Incharge Police Station, Channi Himmat, Jammu to

    register an FIR against the petitioner herein, for having committed
    2
    CRM(M) No. 680/2026

    offences punishable under Section 82(1) and (2) along with other

    Sections of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023, with the allegations

    that the petitioner herein during the subsistence of marriage with the

    complainant had contracted second marriage with respondent No. 3-

    Manjinder Singh, and that she has been living with him as his wife at

    Hisar in the State of Haryana; that the learned Magistrate in a haphazard

    manner without taking procedural law, initially asking for the action

    taken report, later treated the application as complaint vide order dated

    10.10.2025, though there was no sequence of the dates of hearing as is

    borne out from the minutes of the proceedings of the trial court.

    03. He has further argued that the application filed against the petitioner

    herein, could not have been treated as a complaint by the learned

    Magistrate and that the learned Magistrate appears to have committed

    irregularities while conducting the proceedings.

    04. Heard.

    05. On perusal of the complaint sought to be quashed, it appears that the

    same had been made with a request to pass directions to the concerned

    Police Station to register an FIR against the petitioner herein and one

    Manjinder Singh, with whom she was alleged to have contracted second

    marriage. It is strangely found that in support of the complaint, an

    affidavit was also filed, though shown to have been sworn by one Sunita

    Devi W/o Raj Kumar, but was signed at the places of deponent by the

    complainant-Balbir Singh. The deponent was stated to have been

    identified by Mr. Abrar Ashraf, Advocate and the affidavit was stated to

    have been attested by an Oath Commissioner, even the proceedings
    3
    CRM(M) No. 680/2026

    carried out by the learned Magistrate in the complaint were also irregular

    with no sequence of dates, which suggest that the learned Magistrate has

    dealt with the matter in a casual and mechanical manner.

    06. Furthermore, the petitioner has raised arguable points with regard to

    maintainability of the complaint before the learned Magistrate, which

    had been moved initially for seeking directions to the concerned Police

    Station to register a case and was later converted into a complaint to be

    tried by the learned Magistrate himself allegedly against the settled legal

    principles.

    07. Having gone through the pleadings and on hearing the submissions urged

    by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner herein, a case is made

    out, warranting interference for an interim measure.

    08. Notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. Requisites be

    filed within a week’s time.

    09. List on 12.08.2026.

    10. Meanwhile, subject to objections and till next date of hearing before the

    Bench, proceedings in the complaint titled “Balbir Singh Katoch Vs.

    Union Territory & Others” pending before the court below are stayed.

    (M A CHOWDHARY)
    JUDGE
    JAMMU
    07.07.2026
    SUNIL



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here