Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Basharat Razaq vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors on 5 August, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Sr. No. 36
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 947/2024
Basharat Razaq .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Azmat Ullah Parihar, Advocate
V/s
Union Territory of J&K & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- None
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL,JUDGE
ORDER
05.08.2025
01. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking
quashment of FIR No. 0228 dated 18.09.2024 registered at Police
Station Bahu Fort, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 307, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and is seeking quashment of
the said FIR precisely on the following grounds:-
(I) That registration of FIR enlarged by respondent No.
3 on 18.09.2024 does not disclose specific instances
of commission of offences of the above mentioned
section by the petitioner and lodged just to harass hi(II) That respondent No. 2 registered the said FIR
against the petitioner without application of mind
as the allegations prima facie show that the
complaint is false and frivolous;
(III) That Police Station Bahu Fort lodged the FIR
against the petitioner which is the abuse of process
of law because in offences like
126(2)/115(2)/307/352/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, the
2
police authorities is not bound to register the FIR
as the maximum punishment in these offences is
two years and section 307 of BNS is not applicable
in this case as the amount of Rs. 25,000/- has not
been stolen by the petitioner as he himself is a
Govt. employ having 60,000/- salary and belong
from financial sound family so the question of
stolen money has not been justified in this case;
(IV) That it is essential firstly to scrutinize the
complaint made by the petitioner then the
complaint made by respondent No. 2 against the
petitioner had to ascertain but respondent No. 3
without using application of mind and lodged the
FIR against the Govt. employee.
(V) That lodging of FIR in the circumstances is nothing
but an abuse process of law and the same in the
circumstances is wholly unwarranted and aimed at
victimising the petitioner. The registration of the
FIR
and investigation pursuant thereto constitutes an
abuse
of process of law & FIR in question is required to
be quashed.
02. The allegations contained in the report, on the basis of
which, the said FIR has been registered read as under:-
“The applicant/complainant is a student by profession
residing at Bathindi, Jammu. On 17th Sept 2024 at about 8:05
Pm, the applicant was going in his car from Bathindi near
Alhayat Store and suddenly the above said accused namely
Basharat Hussain came in his vehicle Scorpio (Black) bearing
Reg. no JKO2CG-4126 along with four other accused
persons and without and rhyme and reason used filthy and
abusive language and attacked the applicant with sharp edged
weapons, lathis, chains and blows in his head etc and damage
the iphone 13pro and car (Swift diesel) of the applicant
bearing Reg. No HR29AG5365 and stole an amount of
rupees 25200/- which was the Tutin installment fees of the
applicant. The above said accused persons with common
criminal intention having joint conspiracy attacked the
applicant in order to eliminate the applicant but the applicant
has somehow managed to escape and ran away from the spot
in order to save his life from the clutches of accused persons.
The applicant received serious injuries over the shoulder and
other body parts and shifted to Govt. Hospital Gandhi Nagar
Jammu for treatment under MLC No. 1282(B). The applicant
approached to the concerned Police Post, Bathindi and
narrated the entire story and also moved an application for
3taking appropriate action and lodge an FIR against accused
persons culprits but all in vain and the concerned police
refuses to give receipt of complaint to the applicant. The
accused persons after coming to know about that the
applicant approached the Police Department for lodging of
FIR against them, the accused persons extending threats to
eliminate the applicant. The accused persons are criminal
bent of mind and having no respect of law and also take law
in his own hands.”
03. From the perusal of the said FIR, it is clear that the FIR
discloses the commission of cognizable offences, and as such, the
SHO concerned was under a statutory obligation to register an FIR
and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The moot
question that arises for consideration is whether, despite the FIR
disclosing cognizable offences, the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the same.
04 Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the Code of
Criminal Procedure limits or affects inherent powers of the high Court
to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
05 The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar
Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, has sounded a note of caution about the
powers of High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-
A Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their
lordships enunciated that the High Court being the highest Court of a
State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when
the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and
4
the issues involved, whether factual or legal, being of magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material
before the Court. While exercising inherent jurisdiction as observed
by their Lordships, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was
a Trial Court. It would be none of the duties of the High Court to
appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material produced are
sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty.
06 It would also be proper to refer to judgment of the Supreme
Court in Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, while
summarizing the principles in the light of which inherent powers can
be exercised, has observed:
“132.The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such
orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though
unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily
exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires
great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
133. The Judicial Committee in (1) Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad and (2) Lala
Jai Ram Das v. Emperor has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old
Code gave no new powers but only provided that those which the Court
already inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the
field till date.
134. This Court in Dr Raghubir Sharon v. The State of Bihar had an
occasion to examine the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its
jurisdiction when to be exercised. Mudholkar, J speaking for himself and
Raghubar Dayal, J after referring a series of decisions of the Privy Council
and of the various High Courts held thus:
…every High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in
a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing
the ends of justice…. Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be
pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate
Court to is powers….
135. See Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr.,
[1958] SCR 1226 and Pampapathy v. State of Mysore [1966] (Supp.) SCR
477.
5
136. Thus, the inherent power under this Section can be exercised by the
High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High
Court, it has been observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra that
the power in not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the
Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should
be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised
as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the
Code. Vide (1) Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshotam; (2) Khushi
Ram v. Hashim and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 542; and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram
Chander Agarwala.
137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the
highest Court of a State should normally retrain from giving a premature
decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and
hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of
great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down
in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction to quashing the proceedings at any stage. This
Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors [1990] 3
Supp. SCR 256 to which both of us were parties have dealt with this
question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances
under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing
proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to
extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers
under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code.”
07. The Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State, AIR 1999
SC 3597, has held that appreciation of evidence is the function of the
Court when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the
material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially
scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion (in the said case about the
jurisdiction of the police station). It was also observed that for the
purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. PC, to quash an
FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on
the basis of the allegation made in the complaint or the documents
accompanying the same per se, it has no jurisdiction to examine the
correctness of otherwise of the allegations.
6
08. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, since the
impugned FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, this
Court is of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to
exercise its inherit jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.c. to quash the
same at this stage. The allegations levelled in the said FIR, whether
true or false, are matter to be ascertained during investigation, which
falls within the exclusive domain of the Investigating agency. The
Police shall, therefore, proceed with the investigation strictly in
accordance with law to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made
therein. It is for the Investigating Agency to collect evidence and,
based on the same, establish whether the allegations are substantiated
or not.
09. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no case is made out for exercising inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR.
10. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
Judge
JAMMU
RAM MURTI/PS
05.08.2025