Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a Crime Branch FIR, ruling that a statutory criminal investigation cannot be stalled merely because a person apprehends that he may be implicated in the case. Justice Shahzad Azeem passed the order in a petition filed by Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, who had challenged FIR No. 34 of 2017 registered by Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court noted that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR. His grievance was primarily against a notice issued under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his apprehension that the investigating agency might rope him into the case.
Advocate Aadil Parray appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Mejhabeen represented the respondents.
The High Court observed that, through the petition, the petitioner was essentially seeking to restrain the investigating agency from proceeding further with the probe solely on the basis of the Section 41-A notice.
Significantly, the Court found that the petitioner had already approached the High Court earlier through CRM(M) No. 88 of 2025, seeking quashing of the same FIR on substantially identical grounds. Notice had been issued in that petition and the matter was still pending adjudication.
Justice Azeem held that the fresh petition constituted a second attempt to secure the same relief.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The police, the Court said, have no discretion to refuse registration of such an FIR and are under a statutory obligation to conduct the investigation. The High Court also took note of a hue and cry notice and observed that the petitioner appeared to have absconded instead of cooperating with the investigating agency.
The petitioner had thereafter approached the Court seeking quashing of an FIR in which he had not even been named as an accused, the Court noted.
"The petition is, in essence, an attempt to use the process of this Court to stall the statutory investigation," the High Court observed, adding that such a course was wholly impermissible.
Holding that no interference was warranted at the investigation stage, the Court dismissed the petition as "grossly misconceived" along with the connected application.
The High Court, however, allowed a separate application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned FIR. (JNF) |
