Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Murtaza @Ali Jahangir vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 4 May, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.48
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:04.05.2026
Uploaded on: 07.05.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:
Full
CRM(M) No.274/2021
c/w
CRM(M) No.334/2021
MURTAZA @ALI JAHANGIR
SAKEENA
...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Gousia, Advocate (for petitioner in CRM(M)
No.274/2021)
Mr. Hamza Prince, Advocate (for petitioner in
CRM(M) No.334/2021)
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ANR.
INSHA JAHANGEER & ANR.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mr. Hamza Prince, Advocate (for R2 in
CRM(M) No.274/2021)
Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Gousia Advocate (for R1 & R2 in CRM(M)
No.334/2021)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1. Through the medium of present judgement, the afore-
titled two clubbed petitions are proposed to be disposed of.
Vide CRM(M) No.274/2021, the petitioner has challenged
FIR No.50/2021 for offences under Section 454 and 380 of
IPC registered with Police Station, Sadder, Srinagar, whereas
Page 1 of 9
vide CRM(M) No.334/2021, the petitioner has challenged the
complaint filed against her by respondent No.1 therein,
which is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff) Srinagar. In the
said petition, challenge has also been thrown to order dated
29.09.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby
process has been issued against the accused.
Relevant facts pertaining to CRM(M) No.274/2021:
2. As per allegations made in the impugned FIR, which
has been registered on the basis of the directions issued by
the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax &
Electricity, Srinagar, the common ancestor of the
petitioner/accused and the complainant, namely, Mrs.
Naseema Akhter and Mrs. Jabeena Husain, were owners in
possession of residential house along with land underneath
and appurtenant thereto measuring 1 kanal and 10 marlas
in equal ration falling under Khasra No.1443/181 situated
at Baghati Barzullah, Srinagar. It has been alleged by the
complainant that as per Muslim Personal Law, the said
property should have devolved upon the legal heirs to the
extent of their respective shares. It has been alleged that the
petitioner/accused trespassed into the residential house of
the complainant and broke open the locks of the property
and took away golden ornaments and money along with
Page 2 of 9
other belongings in the absence of the complainant.
According to the complainant, the petitioner and co-accused
grabbed the properties and cheated the complainant and her
sister despite knowing that they are also the legal heirs to
the extent of their respective shares and have right over the
money, gold ornaments, FDRs and other valuable items. It
has been further alleged in the complaint that Mrs. Jabeena
Hussain is not in a position to locate the movable property
stolen by the petitioner and co-accused and when the same
could not be traced out, the complainant approached the
police for investigating the case.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the
grounds that he has filed a civil suit prior to the registration
of impugned FIR before the Court of City Munsiff, Srinagar,
against the complainant and other defendants seeking a
declaration that he is owner in possession of the property,
which is subject matter of the impugned FIR. According to
the petitioner his father, Shri Jahangir Hussain, expired at
a time when he was minor. It has been submitted that, in
order to pressurize the petitioner, the complainant has
lodged a false FIR against him and the co-accused. It has
been submitted that the petitioner is the only successor in
respect of the property in question but respondent No.2 and
her sister are trying to pressurize him to settle the issue at
Page 3 of 9
their terms. It has been submitted that even the complainant
has filed a suit against the petitioner claiming similar relief
as has been prayed by the petitioner in his suit.
Relevant facts pertaining to CRM(M) No.334/2021:
4. This petition has been filed by Sakeena, who happens
to be the mother of Ms. Esha Javaid, the complainant in FIR
No.50/2021 which is subject matter of challenge in the
connected petition. The petitioner has challenged the
complaint filed by sister of Murtaza alias Ali Jahangeer who
happens to be the petitioner in connected petition (CRM(M)
No.274/2021). In the said complaint, respondent No.2 in
CRM(M) No.274/2021, has been impleaded as accused
besides impleading petitioner Sakeena and one Farooq
Sultan as other accused to the said complaint.
5. In the impugned complaint, it has been alleged that the
complainant is in occupation of the same property which is
subject matter of FIR No.50/2021 of Police Station, Saddar,
Srinagar, by virtue of inheritance. It has been alleged that
the accused persons are hand-in-glow with the concerned
SHO and they trespassed in the property with the help of
goons and they threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. It has been submitted that the matter is
subjudice before the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar, in a suit
but despite this, the accused persons are creating threat in
Page 4 of 9
the mind of the complainant by illegally trespassing into the
property in question. It has been alleged in the complaint
that the accused persons were carrying iron rods and other
lethal equipments, with a view to destroy the property of the
complainant. They removed the iron gate and other entries
to the property in question and threatened the complainant
and other family members with dire consequence. It has
been alleged that the concerned SHO seems to be hand-in-
glow with the accused persons as he did not take any action
in the matter. It has been alleged that the accused persons
broke open locks of the rooms and stole valuable items from
the house in question and they also used abusive language
against the complainant and her family members.
6. The learned Magistrate, after recording preliminary
evidence of the complainant and after considering the report
of the police submitted in terms of Section 202 of Cr. P. C,
proceeded to issue process against the petitioner and co-
accused in terms of impugned order dated 29.09.2021.
7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned complaint
and the impugned order passed by the learned trial
Magistrate on the grounds that the contents of the impugned
complaint do not make out any offence against her or other
co-accused. It has been further contended that the
impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of
Page 5 of 9
law as a co-owner cannot be stopped from entering the
premises or using the same in any manner. It has been
contended that in terms of the report of enquiry submitted
by the police under Section 202 of Cr. P. C, no offence was
found made out against the accused persons but despite
that, the learned trial Magistrate proceeded to issue process
against them. It has also been contended that the dispute
between the parties is purely of a civil nature, regarding
which they are contesting litigation before the civil courts,
therefore, filing of criminal complaint is nothing but abuse
of process of law.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
9. It is ironical that both the contesting parties have
challenged the impugned FIR and the impugned complaint
on identical ground that the dispute between them is purely
of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour with a
view to pressurize the adverse party. Once the parties admit
that the dispute between them is purely of civil nature and
it has been given a criminal colour with an oblique motive to
pressurize the adverse party, the criminal proceedings in
both the cases cannot be sustained.
Page 6 of 9
10. It is the admitted case of the parties that they are
fighting civil litigation before the civil courts with regard to
the property which is subject matter of dispute between
them. Although both the parties have alleged that valuable
items were stolen by the adverse party from the house which
is subject matter of dispute, yet the investigating agency has,
in its reply, clearly stated that these allegations were not
found substantiated. It has been indicated in the status
report filed by the investigating agency that the alleged
stolen properties mentioned in the complaint were not found
stolen from the scene of the occurrence. This goes on to show
that the contesting parties have levelled reckless and false
allegations against each other with a view to give criminal
colour to a dispute which is purely civil in nature.
11. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, held that
the High Court must not hesitate in quashing criminal
proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It would
be apt to refer the following observations of the Supreme
Court:
“While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power
is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. WhetherPage 7 of 9
essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or
not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in
this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of
court.”
12. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
Randheer Singh v. State of U.P, (2021) 14 SCC 626, by
observing that criminal proceedings cannot be taken
recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha
Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 90, the Supreme Court held that a dispute, which is
essentially of a civil nature, cannot be given a cloak of a
criminal offence. It has further been held that the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be justified in
quashing the said cases.
13. In the light of aforesaid legal position and having regard
to the fact that the dispute between the contesting parties is
essentially of civil nature, it is a fit case where this Court
should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash both impugned FIR as well as
the impugned complaint, leaving it open to the contesting
parties to get their rights in respect of the disputed property
adjudicated from the civil court.
Page 8 of 9
14. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the
impugned FIR No.50/2021 for offences under Section 454
and 380 of IPC registered with Police Station, Sadder,
Srinagar, and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashment. Similarly, the impugned complaint titled “Insha
Jhangir vs. Esha Javaid & Ors.” pending before the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (2nd Additional
Munsiff), Srinagar, and the proceedings emanating
therefrom, are also quashed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
04.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the Order is speaking: YES
Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO
Page 9 of 9
