Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Dr. Shahida Hussain vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 17 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 14.07.2026
Pronounced on: 17.07.2026
Uploaded on: 17.07.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
CRM(M) No.423/2023
c/w
CRM(M) No.306/2022
CRM(M) No.453/2023
DR. SYED WAJID ALI HAMDANI & ORS.
ZUBEIDA BEGUM & ANR.
DR. SHAHIDA HUSSAIN
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq, Advocate (in CRM(M)
No.306/2022)
Mr. Hasnain Khawja, Advocate (for CRM(M)
Nos.423 & 453/2023)
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Waseem Gull, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) By this common order, afore-titled three petitions
challenging FIR No.198/2022 for offences under Section
420 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station,
Ganderbal, are proposed to be disposed of. CRM(M)
No.423/2023 has been filed by petitioners Dr. Syed Wajid
Ali Hamdani, Syed Iqbal Hussain Hamdani, Syed Aijaz
Hussain Hamdani, Syed Arshad Hussain Hamdani and Dr.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 1 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
Kousar Jabeen, CRM(M) No.306/2022 has been filed by
petitioners Zubeida Begum and Mumtaza Begum whereas
CRM(M) No.453/2023 has been filed by petitioner Dr.
Shahida Hussain
2) The impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of
the directions passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ganderbal, on a complaint filed by respondent
No.2/complainant. In the complaint, respondent No.2
alleged that she is daughter of late Dr. Agha Wajahat
Hussain and is presently settled in UK. It is alleged that she
is lawful heir of her father and is entitled to inherit land
measuring 31 kanals situated at Busarbugh Ganderbal.
According to the complainant, out of this land around 25.1
kanals of land has been illegally sold and transferred by the
petitioners/accused, who happen to be brothers and sisters
of her late father, including their children.
3) According to the complainant, her father had acquired
the aforesaid land in terms of judgment dated 25.02.2004
passed by the Court, whereafter the land measuring 31
kanals situated at Busarbugh Ganderbal was mutated in
the name of her father, which is clear from the revenue
extracts. It has been alleged that SHO, Ganderbal, is in
league with accused persons. She has further alleged that
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 2 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
upon enquiry from revenue officers of Ganderbal, it was
revealed that only 5 kanals and 9 marlas are shown to be
in the name of her father, which is a fraud on the face of it.
It has been alleged that accused persons were holding high
positions, including the position of Deputy Commissioner,
and they have managed to usurp the land measuring 25.1
kanals at Busarbugh Ganderbal, which is worth more than
Rs.30.00 crores.
4) It has been further alleged that the land measuring 31
Kanals situated at Busarbugh, Ganderbal, was actually
gifted by her grandmother to her deceased father, against
the wishes of her uncles and aunts, the accused persons,
who challenged the same before District Judge, who vide
judgment dated 25.02.2024, their claim was rejected,
whereafter, the land in question was mutated in favour of
her father.
5) It has been alleged that the complainant approached
the authorities for redressal of her grievances as also the
accused persons but without any success and ultimately,
she came to know that the accused persons have
intentionally and deliberately played a fraud with her. It has
been further alleged that the accused persons are men of
muscle and that they are harassing the complainant and
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 3 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
have also threatened that they will transfer the leftover
property in their names.
6) The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR and
the proceedings emanating therefrom on the grounds that
the dispute between them and the complainant is purely
civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour by
the complainant. While giving the background facts of the
case, the petitioners have submitted that there was a
dispute between father of the complainant and the
petitioners/their predecessor- in-interest, with regard to
the land in question as the father of the complainant was
claiming that the land has been gifted to him by his mother.
It has been submitted that while the suit was pending
between the parties, the petitioners/their predecessor-in-
interest, arrived at some settlement and the land in
question was mutated in favour of all the legal heirs
according to law of inheritance. It has been submitted that
after the demise of father of the complainant, she has
started raising questions with regard to inheritance but
during his lifetime, father of complainant never raised any
objection.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the Case Diary.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 4 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
8) As is clear from the contents of the impugned FIR and
the documents placed on record by the petitioners, there
appears to be a dispute relating to inheritance of the
property left behind by ancestors of the parties. While the
complainant claims that entire 31 kanals of land left behind
by her grandmother, was vested with her father by virtue of
a gift deed, the petitioners/accused dispute this fact and
claim that the land was inherited by them as per the law of
inheritance. According to the complainant, the
petitioners/their predecessor-in-interest, have usurped the
share of land which had fallen to her father, in a fraudulent
manner. Thus, the dispute between the parties appears to
be essentially with regard to inheritance of ancestral
property.
9) The question that falls for determination is whether in
the face of the aforesaid nature of dispute between the
parties, it would be open to a criminal court to set the law
into motion at the instant of one party to the dispute
against the other.
10) The Supreme Court in the case of M/S Indian Oil
Corporation vs. M/S NEPC India Ltd. &Ors (2006) 6 SCC
736,while noticing its earlier judgments on the issue
relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 5 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
P.C to quash the complaints and criminal proceedings, has
observed as under:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have
been stated and reiterated by this Court in several
decisions. To mention a few – Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1)
SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194], Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996
(5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra
Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v. State
NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals &
Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC
269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay
Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], and Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC
122]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out the case
alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as
a whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in
the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer
for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with
malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause
harm, or where the allegations are absurd and
inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power
should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv)The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 6 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has
been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal
offence or not.
14.While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists
with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only
in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at
the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step that can be
taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions
and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise
their power under section 250 Cr.P.C., more
frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness
or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be
that as it may.”
11) From the afore-quoted principles of law, it is clear that
before deciding as to whether proceedings in a criminal
complaint are to be quashed, the Court has to be satisfied
that the subject matter involved in the complaint is purely
a civil wrong and it has no criminal texture to it.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 7 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
12) Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in
dispute that the land, which is subject matter of the
impugned FIR, belonged to the ancestors of the parties.
While the complainant claims that her grandmother had
gifted the said property to her father, the petitioners claim
that there was a settlement arrived at between the parties
during the pendency of the suit filed for challenging the gift
deed, whereby they were permitted to take their share in
the property as per the law of inheritance. The complainant
places reliance upon the judgment of the civil court dated
25.02.2004 passed in the suit filed by father of the
complainant, whereby he had challenged the action of his
mother relating to revocation of the gift. It appears that
petitioners Zubeida and Mumtaza Begum, the sisters of Dr.
Wajahat Hussain, did not enter into compromise and the
suit against them was directed to be proceeded further
whereas other legal heirs of mother, Mst. Khatija Begum
(the mother of the parties), entered into compromise with
father of complainant. It also appears that vide order dated
01.08.2023, passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Ganderbal, the appeal of the complainant against mutation
No.979 dated 12.06.2021, passed in respect of land which
is subject matter of dispute between the parties, has been
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 8 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
dismissed and the said mutation order has been upheld. In
the said order, it has been noted that the gift deed executed
in favour of father of the complainant has been revoked and
the revocation mutation stands entered in the revenue
records.
13) In the face of aforesaid facts, it is clear that dispute
between the parties is purely of civil nature and there is no
element of criminality attached to it. The question whether
co-sharers of the complainant were entitled to inherit the
ancestral property, including 31 kanals of land situated at
Busarbugh, Ganderbal, is a purely a dispute of civil nature.
It was not open to the complainant to give it a criminal
texture to it and lodge the impugned FIR against the
petitioners.
14) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Rajinder Singh
Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. And others, (2007) 10 SCC
69, observed that right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint
family property is a civil right. Such a right, if denied by the
other co-sharers for one reason or the other, must be
enforced by taking recourse to the remedies available under
the civil laws. The Court went on to observe that criminal
proceedings cannot be taken recourse to for enforcing such
a civil right.
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 9 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
15) The Courts have time and again discouraged the
tendency to settle matters of purely civil nature by setting
into motion criminal proceedings. In this regard, it would
be apt to quote the following observations of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v.
State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751:
“This Court has time and again drawn
attention to the growing tendency of
complainants attempting to give the cloak of a
criminal offence to matters which are
essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously
either to apply pressure on the accused, or out
of enmity towards the accused, or to subject
the accused to harassment. Criminal courts
should ensure that proceedings before it, are
not used for settling scores or to pressurise
parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same,
it should be noted that several disputes of a
civil nature may also contain the ingredients of
criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried
as criminal offences, even if they also amount
to civil disputes.”
16) Again, in Randheer Singh v. The State of UP and
others, (2021) 4 RCR (Criminal) 496, the Supreme Court
has held that the criminal proceedings should not be
permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
17) The facts emanating from the record, make it clear
that the instant case is a classic example of respondent
No.2/complainant trying to settle a purely civil dispute
relating to inheritance of ancestral property by way of
criminal proceedings. Thus, it is a fit case where this Court
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 10 of 11
2026:JKLHC-SGR:226
should exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends
of justice.
18) Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned
FIR No.198/2022 for offences under Section 420 and 506
of IPC registered with Police Station, Ganderbal, and the
proceedings emanating there from, are quashed.
19) The Case Diary be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
17.07.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
CRM(M) No.423/2023 c/w
CRM(M) Nos.306/ 2022 & 453/2023 Page 11 of 11
