CRM(M)/521/2021 of FAZAL AHMED AND OTHERS Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SHO POLICE STATION SURANKOTE AND OTHERS on 25 August 2025

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT JAMMU

CRM(M) No. 521/2021

Fazal Ahmed and Ors.

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. M. Y. Akhoon, Advocate.

q

vs

UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA for R-1. Mr. P. N. Bhat, Advocate for R-2 & 3.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

ORDER25.08.2025

01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No. 311/2021 for offences under Sections 354/341/109

IPC registered at Police Station, Surankote, inter alia, on the ground that allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that no person on the basis of these allegations can reach at a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against them.

02. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, the private respondent on 24.08.2021 lodged a written complaint against the petitioners alleging inter alia that on 22.08.2021 at about 11:00 hours when she was present in her dhara (a temporary abode), petitioner Aftab Ahmed entered into her dhara, caught her by breasts and torn her clothes. On raising hue and cry, her father and one Munir Ahmed from the neighbourhood reached the spot and rescued her. The complainant goes on to allege that on the same day when her father was going to cut grass, the petitioners restrained his way and beat him, in furtherance of common criminal intention. On the receipt of this report, impugned FIR came to be registered.

03. This Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, however, it is settled position of law that if the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence/offences, the investigation, at thethreshold, cannot be stifled. the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, however, it is settled position of law that if the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence/offences, the investigation, at thethreshold, cannot be stifled.

04. A perusal of the status report filed by the official respondents reveals that during investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and offence under Section 354-B IPC has been established against petitioner Aftab Ahmed and offences under Sections 341/323/109 IPC have been made out against petitioners Mohd. Arshad and Fazal Ahmed. The investigation is complete and charge sheet is also prepared. that during investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and offence under Section 354-B IPC has been established against petitioner Aftab Ahmed and offences under Sections 341/323/109 IPC have been made out against petitioners Mohd. Arshad and Fazal Ahmed. The investigation is complete and charge sheet is also prepared.

05. The High Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The pleas raised by the petitioners, in the present petition, can be determined and tried in a full dressed trial only. upon an inquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The pleas raised by the petitioners, in the present petition, can be determined and tried in a full dressed trial only.

06. Viewed thus, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed along with connected CM(s). along with connected CM(s).

07. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

(Rajesh Sekhri)

Judge

Jammu25.08.2025Sushant