Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sahil Mushtaq vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 4 March, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Serial No. 135
Supplementary List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No. 91/2026
Sahil Mushtaq
..... Appellant/petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Syed Gousia Tabasum, Advocate
V/S
UT of J&K and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr. Waseem Gul, GA for R-1
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
(ORDER)
04.03.2026
01. By this petition, petitioners herein, have invoked jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarak Suraksha Sanhita,
BNSS, 2023, thereby, challenging the FIR No. 01 of 2026, dated
05.01.2026, registered against the petitioner at Police Station,
Nowhatta, Srinagar, under Section 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2)
(3) and 338 of BNS, corresponding to Sections 120-B, 406, 420,
02. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the
cause of action as per FIR, had accrued in the year 2019, however,
the FIR has been lodged after about more than six years viz
05.01.2026. Learned senior counsel further states that the dispute,
which is civil in nature has been given the colour of criminal
litigation, only to harass the petitioner herein, moreover, the
complainant has already preferred a litigation under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, against Ms. Sameera Altaf, where the
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
name of the petitioner does not figure anywhere. Learned senior
counsel has relied upon the Judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950. Learned
senior counsel has also relied upon the Judgment reported in
(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 775, paragraph 21 whereof is taken
note of herein:-
” 21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the
informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance
regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in
filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for
the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not
make the complainant’s case improbable when such delay
is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging
the complaint is always fatal.”
03. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also
referred to and relied upon the Judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in case titled Vandana Jain and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors., reported as 2026 INSC 192 in support of his
claim.
04. Notice to respondents returnable within four weeks. Requisites
within one week.
05. List on 15.04.2026.
06. In the meantime, subject to objections of other side and till next
date of hearing before the Bench, the impugned FIR No. 01 of
2026, lodged against the petitioner shall remain stayed.
07. Alteration, modification or vacation on motion.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
04.03.2026
“Mohammad Yasin Dar”
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document