Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ali Mohammad Ahanger And Ors vs Principal Secretary To on 21 July, 2025
S. No. 31
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 413/2022
ALI MOHAMMAD AHANGER AND ORS. ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Zareena Akhter, Advocate
Vs.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO ...Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT AND ORS.
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL-JUDGE
ORDER
21.07.2025
1. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Mir, IO, is present in the Court along with the CD
file.
2. Petitioners through the medium of this petition filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure are seeking quashing of FIR
registered with Police Station, Budgam as FIR no. 78/2022 for offences
under Section 323, 427 of IPC, on the complaint of Mst. Haleema W/o
Ali Mohammad Dar R/o Lalgam, Chadoora, Budgam.
3. The complaint on the basis of which FIR has been registered alleges
that complainant’s son, Shahid Ahmad Dar, was constructing a trench;
during which accused came on spot and started beating him and also
inflicted injuries to him. She and her husband came to the rescue of
their son but accused also attacked them and inflicted injuries to her as
well as tore her clothes, thus, outraged her modesty. The accused also
damaged her vehicle.
4. The grounds, on which FIR is sought to be quashed, are that petitioners
and complainant are relatives. She is petitioners’ sister and aunt of
petitioner no.2 and FIR is the family feud and vengeance. They live in
the neighboring village of the complainant and petitioners have some
2
CRM(M) 413/2022
ancestral property in the village of the complainant in addition to the
property purchased by the petitioners. Respondent no.4, her husband
and their children have evil eye on the property of the petitioners and
want to grab the said property by making it difficult for the petitioners
to access and use the said property. The complainant and her husband
have often tried to restrict petitioners from entering their property by
physically attacking them and by engaging the petitioners in frivolous
and malicious litigation in order to harass and blackmail them. On many
occasions the complainant, her husband and their children have
physically assaulted the petitioners and barged and attacked the
petitioners at their work places.
5. It is being also stated that petitioners have also filed a civil suit against
the complainant and her family in which restraint order has been passed
against them. As they have left no scope for complainant to initiate any
civil litigation as all her genuine and legal demands are willingly and
happily accepted by the petitioners, so out of frustration and
desperation, complainant, her husband and her children regularly lodge
false and baseless FIRs against them. Local police are playing a partisan
role in whole issue and harassing the petitioners on irrelevant and
frivolous grounds which compelled the petitioners to approach Senior
Superintendent of Police, Budgam, submitting an application
requesting therein to take necessary action against the erring policemen
and to conduct a proper enquiry in the whole issue. Deputy
Superintendent of Police concerned was directed to look into the matter
and get the proper investigation conducted.
6. It is also stated by petitioners that role of police has always been
suspicious in the present case which further can be established by the
fact that the impugned FIR and FIR lodged by the petitioners arise from
the same incident, still police has appointed two separate Investigation
Officers to investigate two FIRs and not the same Investigation Officer,
to hush up the actual story and implicate them. By implicating the
petitioner no. 3 and 4 who happen to be the daughters-in-law of the
petitioner no.1, the complainant is trying to blackmail the petitioners by
3
CRM(M) 413/2022
forcing them to come on table and give up their legal demands.
Petitioner no. 3 and 4 are pious and religious ladies who are at threshold
of making their career and establish their family. The respondents
falsely implicating petitioners have not only jeopardized petitioners’
career prospects but have stigmatized their social life as well. The only
motive of the respondents to implicate petitioners in false and frivolous
case is to compel the petitioners to give up their claim on their property
and succumb to the demands of the respondent no. 4 and her family.
7. It is also submitted by petitioners that since complainant and her family
failed from all sides to meet their illegal demands, they jointly hatched
a conspiracy and in order to pressurize the petitioners herein filed a
baseless complaint against the petitioners and in consequence of the
same, impugned FIR came to be lodged.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on file.
9. The question that is to be determine in this case is whether FIR in
question which has been registered at the instance of complainant for
the offences under Section 323, 427 of IPC, as FIR no. 78/2022, could
be quashed, while taking into account the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners and also judgments relied upon as well as
written arguments submitted which is part of the record. Petitioners
have also relied upon a Judgment passed in Shalib @ Shalu @ Salim
vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 20 SCC 194. The learned
counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the said judgement has
submitted that the registration of the FIR and investigation therein has
resulted in abuse of process of law inasmuch as allegations are
frivolous, therefore, is required to be quashed. She further submits that
allegations made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR has been
registered are frivolous and vexatious and the complaint had been
instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, as such, the FIR
in question is required to be quashed.
10.What is to be seen at the time when an FIR is registered on a complaint
of complainant is that allegations are to be examined which are made
in the FIR/complaint and it is to be seen as to whether such allegations
4
CRM(M) 413/2022
disclose commission of cognizable offence or not, and if it is found on
the perusal of the FIR that cognizable offence is disclosed to have been
committed and alleged against the accused what is to be done by the
police is to register an FIR and investigate and find out whether such
offences are proved or not. So, where a complaint discloses cognizable
offences which requires investigation the complaint in such a manner
cannot be thrown out at preliminary stage. It is when the allegations
made in FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and
accepting them in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the
offence or make out a case against the accused then the FIR is to be
quashed. It is when the information on the face of it appears to be
concocted and fabricated then the Court is required to take into account
the same and, if found that story is concocted and fabricated, quash the
FIR. Again where the allegations in FIR or other material, if any,
accompanying FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code, the Court can quash FIR. Further, where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or compliant and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused, then in such situation as well the
Court can quash the FIR. In addition to that, where the allegation in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code, the Court can intervene. It is also to be seen when the
allegations contained in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach at a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, the Court can exercise inherent powers.
11.Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and having
regard to the complaint on the basis of which FIR has been registered,
5
CRM(M) 413/2022
the contents of the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable
offence and such allegations do not appear to be improbable or
vexatious at the time when FIR was registered.
12.The medical record is also on the file which shows that the complainant
had suffered injuries of simple nature. The police during the course of
investigation have collected the material on record and it was found in
their investigation established. Therefore, having regard to the FIR in
question as well as the report of investigation and material collected, it
cannot be said at this stage that the allegations are vexatious,
improbable or it cannot be said that same do not prima facie disclose
commission of cognizable offence. Whatever, being stated by counsel
for the petitioners is that can be looked into during the course of the
trial before the Trial court. They are free to take evidence on record
during trial of the case and not at this stage.
13.In view of the above, this petition is dismissed along with connected
CrlM(s). However, bail order shall remain in force.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
21.07.2025
“Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.08.2025 09:36