District Budgam vs R/O Goshbugh on 27 July, 2026

    0
    3
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    District Budgam vs R/O Goshbugh on 27 July, 2026

                                                                    Serial No. 04
                                                                   Regular Cause List
    
             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                            AT SRINAGAR
    
                                CrlM No. 1144/2026 in
                                CRM (M) No. 496/2026
                                 CrlM No. 1145/2026
    
                                                         Dated: 27th of July, 2026.
       Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, Age: 61 Years
       S/O Abdul Ahad Sheikh
       R/O Sechin Bonet Beerwah,
       District Budgam.
                                                                  ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Through: -
                              Mr Aadil Parray, Advocate.
                                          V/s
    1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
       Through Station House Officer (SHO),
       Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir, Srinagar.
    
    2. Abdul Rehman Wani
       S/O Gh. Rasool Wani
       R/O Goshbugh, Pattan, Baramulla.
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

    Through: –

    Ms Mejhabeen, Advocate.
    CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.

    (ORDER)

    CrlM No. 1144/2026:

    01. By virtue of this application, the Applicant/ Petitioner is
    seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of impugned FIR No.
    34/2017 registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir, Srinagar.

    02. Having regard to the averments made in the application,
    coupled with submissions made at the Bar, the instant application is
    allowed and the Applicant/ Petitioner is exempted from filing the certified
    copy of the impugned FIR.

    CrlM No. 1144/2026 in
    CRM (M) No. 496/2026
    CrlM No. 1145/2026

    SPONSORED

    Page 2 of 3

    03. CrlM No. 1144/2026 is, thus, disposed of on the above terms.

    CRM (M) No. 496/2026; CrlM No. 1145/2026:

    04. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

    05. The Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 34/2017 of Police
    Station Crime Branch, Kashmir, Srinagar registered for offences under
    Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

    06. Indisputably, the name of the Petitioner does not figure in the
    impugned FIR as an accused. The Petitioner is principally aggrieved of the
    notice issued under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.
    C.) and apprehending that he may be roped in as an accused in the said FIR.

    07. By the present Petition, the Petitioner, in substance, seeks to
    restrain the Investigating Agency from proceeding further in the
    investigation. The sole basis of this apprehension is the issuance of the
    notice under Section 41-A Cr. P. C.

    08. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that prior to the
    institution of present Petition, the Petitioner had already approached this
    Court seeking quashing of the very same FIR on substantially identical
    grounds by way of CRM (M) No. 88/2025, wherein only notice has been
    issued and same is pending adjudication.

    09. The present Petition, therefore, constitutes a second attempt at
    the same relief and runs contrary to the settled principle that registration of
    an FIR under Section 154 Cr. P. C. is mandatory once the information
    discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
    in case titled “Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
    (2014) 2 SCC 1″ has categorically held that registration of FIR under
    Section 154 Cr. P. C. is mandatory when the information discloses
    CrlM No. 1144/2026 in
    CRM (M) No. 496/2026
    CrlM No. 1145/2026

    Page 3 of 3

    commission of a cognizable offence. The police, therefore, has no
    discretion to refuse registration or to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test
    the veracity of such information, rather it is their statutory duty to conduct
    the investigation.

    10. From the perusal of the hue and cry notice, it seems that the
    Petitioner, instead of cooperating with the Investigating Agency, has
    absconded and now has filed the instant Petition seeking quashing of the
    impugned FIR, in which he is not even named as an accused. The Petition
    is, in essence, an attempt to use the process of this Court to stall the
    statutory investigation. Such a course is wholly impermissible and does not
    call for any interference at this stage.

    11. For the foregoing reasons, this Petition is found to be grossly
    misconceived and same is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the
    connected CrlM.

    (SHAHZAD AZEEM)
    JUDGE
    SRINAGAR
    July 27th, 2026
    “TAHIR”

    i. Whether the Order is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.

    Tahir Manzoor Bhat
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this
    document



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here