Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Serial No. 2 vs Union Territory Through Police Station on 30 March, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Serial No. 20
Regular Cause list
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 461/2025CrlM(1109/2025)
Reserved on : 10.03.2026
Pronounced on : 30.03.2026
Uploaded on : 31.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: _Full____
GULZAR AHMAD GANIE AND ORS. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Asif Bhat, Advocate &
Mr. Arshid Bashir, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION
Respondent(s)
RAM MUNSHI BAGH AND ANR. (HOME)
Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA (R-1)
Mr. Sajad Ahmad Mir, Advocate with
Ms. Ifra Milad, Advocate (R-2)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, filed in terms of Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners
are praying for quashing the FIR No. 40/2025 of Police Station, Ram
Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, registered for the commission of offences
punishable in terms of Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) BNS as also the
consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The
petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed not to harass
them. The above said relief is sought by the petitioners on the grounds
taken in the body of the petition.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. A criminal complaint is stated to have been filed by the respondent
No. 2 against the petitioners before Police Station, Ram Munshi
Bagh, Srinagar, alleging therein that the petitioners had manhandled,
abused and beaten up respondent No. 2 on 29th May, 2025, at Rose
Enclave, Shivpora, Srinagar, as she raised an objection on parking of
vehicles of the petitioners in front of the main gate of her residential
house. Another complaint filed on the same day at a different time is
also stated to have been filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2
inter alia alleging therein that the petitioners again used
unparliamentary/abusive language and attempted to rape her. On the
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 1 of 8
basis of the said complaints, a case FIR No. 40/2025, came to be
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences
punishable in terms of Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) BNS. There is
one more compliant on the basis whereof the police concerned had
registered case FIR No. 44/2025 against some of the petitioners for
commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 76, 115(2),
351(2) and 191(2) BNS and initiated the inquest proceedings. During
the currency of investigation, the petitioners moved an application for
grant of anticipatory bail on 13.06.2025 before the court of learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who upon consideration of the
matter granted interim bail in favour of the petitioners in terms of
order dated 26.06.2025.
3. Upon consideration of the matter, this court while issuing notice to the
respondents in the main petition as well as in the interim application,
in terms of order dated 06.08.2025, directed that the police concerned
shall conclude the investigation but shall not file the charge sheet
besides directing the Investigating Officer of the case not to take any
unwarranted coercive measures against the petitioners.
4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents appeared and filed their reply.
Respondent no. 2 also filed an application seeking vacation of the
direction contained in order dated 06.08.2025. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer, ASI Bashir Ahmad, made a submission in the
court, while appearing in person, that petitioners are not cooperating
with investigation and the court granted liberty to the Investigating
Officer to approach this court for appropriate orders in case the
petitioners fail to cooperate with him.
5. Thereafter on 27.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
(wrongly shown as learned counsel for respondent in the order), had
sought adjournment through a vice counsel and the matter was
adjourned with the direction that in case the learned arguing counsel
does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be
considered on the merits, in his absence.
6. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 2/complainant had moved an
application stating therein that the accused/petitioners have repeated
the offence after obtaining an interim bail and they are continuously
harassing her. The complainant had further asserted in her application
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 2 of 8
that she apprehends that she may be met with some untoward incident
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
if they are allowed to be on bail.
7. The trial court, upon perusing the CD file and upon hearing arguments
on 25.09.2025, came to the conclusion that the petitioners do not
deserve the concession of bail, therefore, rejected the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the CD file and
the other relevant records minutely.
9. At the very outset, it needs to be emphasized that the jurisdiction
vested with this court in terms of Section 528 of the BNSS has
consistently been held to be exercised cautiously, carefully, and
sparingly. The jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS can be pressed
into service only in the following circumstances:
I. In order to give effect to any order passed under BNSS.
II. To prevent abuse of process of court.
III. To secure the ends of justice; and
IV. To prevent miscarriage of justice.
10. The bare glance of the above reflected exceptions would make it
absolutely clear that this court has not to function as a court of appeal
or revision but has to confine itself within the contours of the
exceptional situations as described hereinbefore.
11. The case in hand, on the face of it, seeks to challenge the validity of
the FIR No. 40/2025, lodged against the petitioners at the instance of
the respondent No. 2/ complainant inter alia on the grounds that the
allegations contained in the complaint, on the basis whereof the FIR in
question has been registered, are baseless, aimed at to harass,
humiliate and falsely implicate the petitioners; the allegations made in
the complaint are fabricated, highly exaggerated and inherently
improbable, lacking any corroborative material or factual basis; the
petitioners are respectable citizens of the society and have not done
any such act as would demand a criminal legal action against them;
the respondent No. 2, by filing the complaint against the petitioners, is
actually trying to settle scores with them as earlier in time some verbal
altercation has taken place between the petitioners and the respondent
No. 2; the respondent No. 2/complainant is habitual of creating scenes
in the society and in the whole locality is fed up with her acts; the
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 3 of 8
petitioner No. 1 is a reputed Sufi Singer having earned many awards
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
including the one given by the president of India; the FIR in question
is registered in a gross abuse of the criminal justice system having
been set into motion only to pressurize and intimidate the petitioners;
the respondent No. 2 has attempted to convert a civil party issue into a
criminal prosecution which is impermissible in law; no prima facie
offence is made out against the petitioners even if the allegations in
the FIR are accepted in its entirety.
12. Upon being presented, the instant petition came up for consideration
before this court on 06.08.2025 and this court, while issuing notice to
the other side, passed certain directions in the matter. It would be
profitable to reproduce the operative portion of the order herein:
“In the meantime, subject to any vacation or
modification upon the consideration of
objections/arguments, and till the next date of hearing
before the Bench, respondent No. 1 while being at
liberty to proceed with the investigation in the impugned
case FIR, shall not, however, present the final
report/challan in terms of Section 173 BNSS, if any,
contemplated, before the competent court.
The respondent No.1/Investigating Officer of the case is
also directed not to take any unwarranted coercive
measures during the investigation of the case, against
the applicants/petitioners.”
13. The incident in question dates back to 29.05.2025, the
investigation is complete but the challan could not be presented
by the police before the competent court of law because of the
order dated 06.08.2025, passed by this court in the instant
petition.
14. As would appear from the above described position, the
petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequent
proceedings initiated thereupon on the grounds as taken note of
hereinbefore, however, it requires to be seen as to whether any of
the four circumstances/situations, as pointed out in the preceding
paragraphs, is disclosed? The answer is in negative as none of the
ingredients, as are required to be established for pressing into
service the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section
528 BNSS, are fulfilled so as to warrant interference of this court.
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 4 of 8
15. It appears from the perusal of the CD file that the police
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
concerned have dealt with two separate complaints by way of a
single FIR, (FIR no. 40/2025), being related to a similar kind of
activity, after having been merged for investigation purposes.
One more FIR No. 44/2025 is also registered at the instance of
the complainant against some of the petitioners.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of
arguments, has mainly and vehemently laid stress on the merger
of the complaints being bad in law and sought quashing of the
FIR and the consequent proceedings initiated thereupon on the
said premise only. Based on the said submission learned counsel
for the petitioners is seeking to quash FIR and the consequent
proceedings initiated thereupon, while referring to the judgment
of the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of
SLP(Criminal) No. 13751-13752 of 2023, titled “Khursheed
Ahmad Chohan vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir &Ors.
Etc“.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has, on the
other hand submitted that the merger of FIRs is quite permissible
in law, more particularly when both the FIRs pertain to and relate
to similar kind of activities. In this connection, the learned
counsel referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered
in Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.)
No. 6548 of 2019 titled “Ms. P1xxx Vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Anr“, reported as 2022 Livelaw (SC) 554 and Criminal Appeal
No. 689 of 2001 reported as 2001 6 SCC 181 titled “T. T. Antony
etc. etc. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Etc” and prayed for dismissal
of the instant petition.
18. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the genesis of the FIR
sought to be quashed by the petitioners lies in the complaint filed
by respondent No. 2, who has alleged in her complaint many
serious allegations against the petitioners. There is a statement of
complainant/ respondent no. 2, given before the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, forming annexure with her reply that
explains an alleged inhumane act of the petitioners towards
respondent no. 2. These events have taken place in the month of
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 5 of 8
May, 2025, almost a year has elapsed from the date of filing of
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
the complaint till today, however, nothing substantial has been
done, so much so that the petitioners/accused have not even been
questioned by the police despite there being no restraint issued by
this court to the police concerned and despite there being a
rejection order of anticipatory bail application dated 29.09.2025,
passed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Srinagar.
19. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the instant petition does
not disclose any of the ingredients that would warrant exercising
extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section
528 of BNSS. In fact, the instant petition appears to be more an
attempt to raise extraneous issues. However, the court must
remain focused on the real controversy and cannot permit
overshadowing or to obscure the core question for determination.
The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners appear to obfuscate the real issue, rather than assist in
its determination.
20. This Court is of the considered opinion that the material placed
on record, and that forming part of the case diary, does warrant
that the criminal case must proceed against the petitioners without
any further unnecessary delay. It would be quite pertinent to
mention here that this Court, in terms of order dated 06.08.2025,
had only directed the respondent No. 1 not to take any
unwarranted coercive measures during the investigation of the
case, against the applicants/petitioners. However, it does not, by
any stretch of imagination, would mean that the petitioners, after
having been named in the FIR, having allegedly committed one
of the most heinous offences, would enjoy an absolute immunity
to the course of law unjustifiably.
It is observed that, on certain occasions, the purport of the
judicial orders suffers due to inadvertent misinterpretation
or incomplete understanding of court orders by the
concerned police functionaries as has happened in the
instant case. The police have taken its hands off
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 6 of 8
completely, presumably, by misinterpreting the order
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
passed by this Court.
21. It would certainly be a travesty of justice in case challan is not
allowed to be presented in the case for any further time, as
already lot of time has been made to waste unnecessarily by the
petitioners for such course to be adopted.
The investigating agency is reminded, in unequivocal
terms, that the majesty of law admits no distinction based
on the stature, influence, or standing of the accused, and
it is therefore incumbent upon the police to always
proceed and deal with the cases strictly in accordance
with law, guided solely by evidence and fairness,
uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations
whatsoever. The CD file produced by the learned counsel
for respondent no. 1 does not inspire confidence that the
investigation has remained wholly insulated from
extraneous considerations, and gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that factors other than the merits of the
case, possibly including the stature of the accused, may
have weighed in impeding a prompt and impartial course
of action. Law does neither differentiate nor discriminate.
Equality before law is not a mere constitutional slogan
but a binding mandate, and any discernible hesitation in
pursuing the matter with the promptitude it deserves
inevitably invites the inference that the investigative
agency has not remained entirely impervious to the
standing or influence of the persons involved.
22. Having regard to what has been said hereinbefore, the petition is
found to be without any merit, therefore dismissed, along with
connected CrlMs. Interim direction shall stand vacated. The
police concerned is directed to present the challan before the
competent court of law without any further delay. The Trial Court
shall proceed ahead in the matter without getting influenced by
any of the observations and/or findings recorded by this court in
any way.
23. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 7 of 8
24. A copy of this judgment is directed to be sent to the Director
2026:JKLHC-SGR:56
General of Police for information and necessary action at his end.
25. Case Diary file be returned to the learned Government counsel
against receipt.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
30.03.2026
“Misba Sajad”
Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes
CRM (M) 461/2025 Page 8 of 8
