Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J
Gulzar Ahmad Ganie And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh And Anr. (home) – Respondent
CRM(M) 461 of 2025|CrlM(1109 of 2025)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Asif Bhat, Advocate, Mr. Arshid Bashir, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA, Mr. Sajad Ahmad Mir, Advocate, Ms. Ifra Milad, Advocate

The jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR is extraordinary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as preventing abuse of process or securing the ends of justice.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528 - Jurisdiction - Quashing of FIR - Parameters for exercise of power - The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised cautiously, carefully, and sparingly, only to give effect to any order, prevent abuse of process, secure ends of justice, or prevent miscarriage of justice. (Para 9)

(B) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 191(2), 351(2) - Offences - Allegations of assault, attempt to rape, and criminal intimidation - The court noted serious allegations including attempt to rape and that the material on record warranted the criminal case to proceed. (Paras 2, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners alleging that they manhandled, abused, and beat her, and later attempted to rape her. Based on these complaints, FIR No. 40/2025 was registered for offences under Sections 74, 115(2), and 351(2) BNS. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, claiming the allegations were baseless, exaggerated, and aimed at harassment. The court had earlier directed the police not to file a charge sheet and to avoid unwarranted coercive measures. The petitioners' anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that none of the conditions for exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS were fulfilled. The petition was dismissed as without merit, and the police were directed to present the charge sheet without delay. The court expressed concern that the investigation may have been influenced by the stature of the accused and emphasized equality before law.

Issues: Whether the FIR and consequent proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on grounds of baseless allegations and improper merger of complaints.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. Since the FIR disclosed serious allegations and the investigation was not complete, no case for quashing was made out. The court also held that the merger of two related complaints into a single FIR for investigation is permissible.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background facts and procedural history of the case (Para 1)

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. By this petition, filed in terms of Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners are praying for quashing the FIR No. 40/2025 of Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, registered for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 74 , 115(2) and 351(2) BNS as also the consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed not to harass them. The above said relief is sought by the petitioners on the grounds taken in the body of the petition.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. A criminal complaint is stated to have been filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners before Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, alleging therein that the petitioners had manhandled, abused and beaten up respondent No. 2 on 29^th May, 2025, at Rose Enclave, Shivpora, Srinagar, as she raised an objection on parking of vehicles of the petitioners in front of the main gate of her residential house. Another complaint filed on the same day at a different time is also stated to have been filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 inter alia alleging therein that the petitioners again used unparliamentary/abusive language and attempted to rape her. On the basis of the said complaints, a case FIR No. 40/2025, came to be registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 74 , 115(2) and 351(2) BNS. There is one more compliant on the basis whereof the police concerned had registered case FIR No. 44/2025 against some of the petitioners for commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 76 , 115(2), 351(2) and 191(2) BNS and initiated the inquest proceedings. During the currency of investigation, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail on 13.06.2025 before the court of learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who upon consideration of the matter granted interim bail in favour of the petitioners in terms of order dated 26.06.2025.

3. Upon consideration of the matter, this court while issuing notice to the respondents in the main petition as well as in the interim application, in terms of order dated 06.08.2025, directed that the police concerned shall conclude the investigation but shall not file the charge sheet besides directing the Investigating Officer of the case not to take any unwarranted coercive measures against the petitioners.

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents appeared and filed their reply.

Respondent no. 2 also filed an application seeking vacation of the direction contained in order dated 06.08.2025. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, ASI Bashir Ahmad, made a submission in the court, while appearing in person, that petitioners are not cooperating with investigation and the court granted liberty to the Investigating Officer to approach this court for appropriate orders in case the petitioners fail to cooperate with him.

5. Thereafter on 27.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioners, (wrongly shown as learned counsel for respondent in the order), had sought adjournment through a vice counsel and the matter was adjourned with the direction that in case the learned arguing counsel does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be considered on the merits, in his absence.

6. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 2/complainant had moved an application stating therein that the accused/petitioners have repeated the offence after obtaining an interim bail and they are continuously harassing her. The complainant had further asserted in her application that she apprehends that she may be met with some untoward incident if they are allowed to be on bail.

7. The trial court, upon perusing the CD file and upon hearing arguments on 25.09.2025, came to the conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail, therefore, rejected the anticipatory bail appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGARMoksha Khajuria Kazmi, JGulzar Ahmad Ganie And Ors. – AppellantVersusUnion Territory Through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh And Anr. (home) – RespondentCRM(M) 461 of 2025|CrlM(1109 of 2025)

The jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR is extraordinary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as preventing abuse of process or securing the ends of justice.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J
Gulzar Ahmad Ganie And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh And Anr. (home) – Respondent
CRM(M) 461 of 2025|CrlM(1109 of 2025)