Sher Mohd. Age 45 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 8 August, 2025

0
1

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Sher Mohd. Age 45 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 8 August, 2025

                                                                     Sr. No. 82


        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                                    Reserved on: 05.08.2025
                                                 Pronounced on: 08.08.2025

CRM(M) No.859/2021
CrlM No.2404/2021

1.    Sher Mohd. Age 45 years
      S/O Rustam Sheikh
      R/O Sangaldan Tehsil Gool
      District Ramban
2.    Mohd. Shafi, Age 50 years
      S/O Mohd. Sultan
      R/O Mavelkot, Tehsil Gool
      District Ramban
3.    Mohd. Afzal, Age 52 years
      S/O Abdul Gani
      R/O Thataraka, Tehsil Gool
                                                           ............Petitioner

                        Through: Mr. Nadim Bhat, Advocate
                 VS

1.   Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
     through Senior Supreintendent of Police,
     Ramban.
2.   Deputy Commissioner, Ramban.
3.   SHO Police Station Gool, District Ramban
4.   Niab Tehsildar, Sangaldan, Tehsil Gool,
     District Ramban.                                        ........Respondents

                        Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                 JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners, through the medium of this petition under Section 482 of

CrPC, seek quashment of Criminal Case No.57 of 2021 titled ‘UT of J&K V.

Mohd. Shafi & Ors.‘ arising out of FIR No.39/2021 registered at P/S Gool on

11.05.2021 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 188/147
2 CRM(M) No.859/2021

IPC & 51 Disaster Management Act, pending before the court of learned

Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) Gool.

2. The impugned charge sheet has been assailed on the ground that the

FIR was registered against the law, as the same did not disclose any cognizable

offence justifying an investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of the

CrPC without following the provisions of Section 155(2) of the CrPC, as the

offences being non-cognizable, the matter could not have been investigated

without the orders of the Magistrate; that the criminal proceedings are

manifestly attended with mala fides, as the same have been maliciously

instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners

accused with a view to spite them as they had participated in a protest against

the administration, as is evident from the FIR itself.

3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed objections, asserting that the

petitioners on 11.05.2021 along with some other unknown persons had gathered

at Main Market Sangaldan and protested against the district administration and,

thus, violated the order issued by the District Magistrate, Ramban on 07.05.2021

under Section 144 CrPC in view of COVID-19; that the petitioners had held a

protest intentionally against the administration during lockdown defying the

order passed by the District Magistrate, Ramban, as such, they were found to

have committed offences punishable under Sections 188/34 IPC and 51 DM Act

and a charge sheet was, thus, filed before the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was unfortunate on

the part of the respondents that due to some protest by the petitioners along with

some other persons against the District Administration, they were implicated in
3 CRM(M) No.859/2021

a false case for violation of the order passed by the District Magistrate in

connection with the COVID-19 and prayed that the prosecution of the

petitioners in such a case was illegal, as the proceedings were initiated against

them maliciously by the Administration and prayed that the proceedings before

the court below in the case titled ‘UT of J&K v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors‘ arising out

of FIR No. 39/2021 under Section 188/34 IPC & 51 DM Act registered at P/S

Gool be quashed.

5. Learned State counsel, ex adverso, argued that it is an admitted fact

that the petitioners had lodged a protest on the day of occurrence when the order

passed by the District Magistrate was in force, whereby, not more than four

persons could assemble in view of precautions taken during the COVID-19

epidemic. The petitioners had, thus, violated the order passed by the District

Magistrate on 16.05.2021 and, as such, they are liable to be prosecuted for the

commission of the offences, which they had been found to have committed. It

was prayed that the charge sheet had been laid before the court of law after

investigation of the case properly and the petitioners must face trial before the

trial court so that they are dealt in accordance with law. Dismissal of the petition

was prayed.

6. The case projected by the respondents against the petitioners herein is

that they had violated the order passed by the District Magistrate Ramban on

16.05.2021 as a matter of precaution to control and contain the COVID

epidemic, by which, the movement of the public was also restricted. The case

against the petitioners is not that they had protested against or violated the order

passed by the District Magistrate in any manner but it has been alleged that they
4 CRM(M) No.859/2021

had held a protest against the District Administration without clarifying as to

what was the reason of protest. The petitioners, who have been charge sheeted,

are three in number and to attract the offence under Section 188 CrPC for

violation of an order issued under Section 144 CrPC, the number of such

persons must be more than four so as to constitute an unlawful assembly. It

appears that impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners

frivolously, as the officers felt offended of their protest against them, with an

aim to harass them. Viewed thus, trial of the petitioners as accused in the case,

would be an abuse of the process of the court.

7. In this view of the matter, it appears that the FIR was registered

against the petitioners without any reason and their trial would be a travesty of

justice. It may also be noted that many State governments in the Union of India

had even withdrawn such cases against the violators of the orders imposed to

contain the COVID, after the epidemic was over. On the contrary, to conduct

trial of the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice. This Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case to seek quashment

of the charge sheet filed against them and pending before the court of learned

Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) Gool in a case titled ‘UT of J&K v. Mohd. Shafi &

Ors.‘ arising out of FIR No. 39/2021 for offences under Sections 188/34 IPC &

51 DM Act registered at P/S Gool.

8. Viewed thus, to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of

justice, the petition is allowed and impugned charge-sheet arising out of FIR

No.39/2021 of Police Station Gool, pending on the files of Judicial Magistrate,

Gool, is hereby ordered to be quashed. As a result, petitioners bail and personal
5 CRM(M) No.859/2021

bonds executed, if any, before the trial court shall also stand discharged. A copy

of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court for its record and compliance.

9. Petition alongwith connected application(s) is, disposed of, as

allowed.

                                                  (                                 ( M A Chowdhary )
                                                                                           Judge

              Jammu
               08.08.2025
              Raj Kumar

                                            Whether order is speaking?   Yes/No
                                            Whether order is speaking?    Yes/No




Raj Kumar
2025.08.08 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here