Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(S)/221/2026 of GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER Vs HARIPRASAD K. K. AND OTHERS (POLICE / HOME) on 20 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 221/2026 in [WP(C) 800/2026]. Gulzar Ahmad & Anr. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Syed Aushaq Hussain, Advocate. VERSUS Hariprasad K. K. & others. …Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(S) 221/2026 in [WP(C) 800/2026].
Gulzar Ahmad & Anr.
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Syed Aushaq Hussain, Advocate.
VERSUS
Hariprasad K. K. & others.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.07.2026
1. The two petitioners, as husband and wife, came forward with writ petition- WP(C) No. 800/2026 in which they named private respondents at serial Nos. 8 and 9 by reference to whom they came to allege that there is a threat to the life and property of the petitioners in the context of land dispute measuring 10 kanals and 8.5 marlas comprising khasra No. 29 situated at Green Avenue, Sector-1, Land-2, Peerbagh, Hyderpora, Srinagar, along with an approach pathway, and therefore invited this Court, without adjudication on merits, for disposal of the writ petition with a direction that their representation made to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, on 02.04.2026, seeking immediate police protection for safeguarding the life and property of the petitioners and their 172 Suppl-I
family members and for ensuring compliance with court orders, be considered and dealt with.
2. This Court, without adjudicating on merits, felt persuaded to dispose of the writ petition at the motion stage with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, to examine the matter and provide police protection to the petitioners, if needed, and accordingly disposed of the writ petition by virtue of an order dated 22.04.2026.
3. The petitioners have come back with a contempt petition- CCP(S) No. 221/2026 alleging that the respondent No. 1- Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, the respondent No. 2- DySP Budgam and the private respondents No. 3 and 4 are guilty of contempt of court by reference to the court’s direction.
4. This Court is at a loss to figure out as to how the respondents No. 2 to 4 have come to be named as party respondents in the present contempt petition when the writ court's order dated 22.04.2026 is, at the most, bearing a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam to examine the matter and deal with the same.
5. Thus, this Court has no iota of doubt that the petitioners are bent upon to scandalize the situation for their benefit and exploit the same by reference to an ongoing civil suit, otherwise, the High Court would not have been asked, in a writ petition, to pass directions for ensuring compliance with court orders as if the High Court is sub-serving to the civil court seized of the lis between the petitioners and the private respondents, for which the civil court otherwise is equally competent by reference to the scope of authority vested in it under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. The present contempt petition-CCP(S) 221/2026 is, thus, seriously misconceived and is dismissed.
7. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam for the sake of notice and record.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 20.07.2026 Bisma Jan.