Serial No. 135 Supplementary List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM No. 72/2026 in CRM(M) No. 36/2026 Aditya Dhar and Ors.

….. Appellant/petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Farman Ali Magrey, Advocate Mr. Parag Khandhar, Advocate Mr. Ibrahim Alam, Advocate Ms. Chandrima Mitra, Advocate Mr. Sikander Hayat Khan, Advocate V/S Ghulam Mohammad Shah ….. Respondent(s)

Through: -

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE (ORDER) 06.02.2026 CrlM No. 72/2026

01. On the set of facts and grounds urged, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, the instant application is allowed and the requirement of placing on record the certified copy of impugned complaint and impugned order dated 30.12.2025 is dispensed with. However, the petitioners are directed to file the same within two weeks.

02. CM disposed of.

CRM(M) No. 36/2026

01. Petitioners herein, have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarak Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS, 2023, thereby, challenging the complaint filed by the respondent along with order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar.

02. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are engaged in the business of development and production of feature films for public consumption and for the said purpose have incorporated the petitioner No. 3, a private Company Limited by shares, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

03. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners in one of feature films directed/co-produced by them, namely Article 370 have used a photograph allegedly that of the respondent, and depicted him as a terrorist in the context of the plot of the feature film, as a consequence thereof, harm has been caused to the reputation of the respondent. It is stated that the respondent has proceeded to file a complaint before the Magistrate, apparently in terms of Section

210, seeking to initiate prosecution against the petitioners.

04. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue pre-cognizance summons in respect to the offence punishable under Section 356 of BNS, 2023.

05. Learned senior counsel has stated that the Magistrate has not proceeded in accordance with law occupying the field. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Sub Section 1 of Section 223 of BNSS, which is taken note of herein”-

“223. Examination of complainant- (1) a Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 212:

Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.”

06. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners’ further states that the learned Magistrate is under an obligation to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present and the substance of such examination has to be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses and also by the Magistrate. Learned senior counsel has raised this legal ground though the same has not been pleaded in the petition, and has strengthened this submission based on judgments passed by various High Courts of India. He has relied upon the Judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad, 2025 SCC Online All 4884. Paragraph 8 being relevant is taken note of:-

“ 8. In view of above, aft