Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 18: In a significant development in a Kanachak cross-FIR dispute, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ordered that if investigation in the subsequent FIR culminates in a chargesheet, the same shall not be laid before the competent court till the next date of hearing, while simultaneously directing the concerned SHO to entrust both rival FIRs arising from the alleged incident to the same Investigating Officer.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the interim directions while hearing CRM(M) No. 869/2026, Sumit Singh & Ors versus UT of J&K & Ors, in which the petitioners have invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashment of an order dated March 28, 2026 passed by the Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, as well as the consequential FIR No. 0051/2026 registered at Police Station Kanachak.
The case involves Sumit Singh, Manjeet Singh and Menu as petitioners. Material annexed with the petition, including a police status report, records an allegation that Manjeet Singh stated that he works in the Revenue Department and had influence. The uploaded court papers, however, do not expressly spell out his precise designation as “Tehsildar”.
The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 0051/2026 dated April 5, registered under Sections 74, 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. They have alleged that the FIR is “manifestly false, vexatious and a counterblast” to an earlier FIR No. 173/2025 dated December 6, 2025, registered at the same Police Station on the complaint of petitioner No. 2 against the private respondents.
According to the petitioners, both criminal cases arise from rival versions of the same alleged occurrence of December 6, 2025.
The petition filed before the High Court states that the dispute had its genesis in a controversy concerning alleged encroachment upon an irrigation canal/Nallah in Chatha Gujjran area. The petitioners have claimed that inhabitants of the village had earlier submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No. 1, Jammu, seeking removal of alleged encroachment from the irrigation canal and restoration of the flow of water. The representation forming part of the court record is dated March 17, 2025.
As per the petitioners' version, an altercation subsequently took place on December 6, 2025, following which petitioner Manjeet Singh approached Police Station Kanachak and FIR No. 173/2025 was registered against members of the opposite side
The police status material placed before the Magistrate records that FIR No. 173/2025 had already been registered concerning an incident at approximately the same time on December 6 and that the rival complainant and her family members figured as accused in the earlier case.
The opposite side, however, presented a rival version of the occurrence and subsequently approached the Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, seeking registration of a criminal case.
The Magistrate, by order dated March 28, 2026, directed the SHO Police Station Kanachak to register an FIR on the basis of the rival complaint.
Significantly, the Magistrate's order, which forms part of the record annexed with the petition, noted that while a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence is impermissible, a counter-FIR or cross-version by the opposite party is legally maintainable and is required to be independently investigated. The Magistrate accordingly directed registration of the case and also required fair investigation of both versions.
Consequently, FIR No. 0051/2026 was registered on April 5 at Police Station Kanachak.
The petitioners thereafter approached the High Court, alleging that the second FIR was a retaliatory “counterblast” to FIR No. 173/2025 and amounted to abuse of the criminal process. They have sought quashment of both the Magistrate's order and the consequential FIR.
In their petition, they have also alleged delay in pursuing the rival complaint, suppression of material circumstances and failure to properly appreciate the earlier police status reports. These contentions remain allegations raised by the petitioners and are yet to be finally adjudicated by the High Court.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Vikram Rathore pressed the challenge, while Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh appeared for the Union Territory.
After hearing the matter, Justice M A Chowdhary issued notice. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 was waived by Dy AG P.D. Singh and the Court directed that reply/objections be filed before the next date of hearing. Notice was also issued to private respondent Nos. 2 to 6, returnable within four weeks.
In the crucial interim direction, the High Court ordered that, subject to objections from the other side and till the next date of hearing, if the investigation culminates in a chargesheet, the same shall await being laid before the competent court of law qua the petitioners.
The order, however, does not halt the investigation itself. The restraint operates on presentation of the chargesheet before the competent court, if the probe reaches that stage before the next hearing.
The High Court also impressed upon the SHO concerned to assign both FIR No. 0051/2026 and FIR No. 173/2025 to the same Investigating Officer, an important direction given that the two cases represent rival versions arising from the alleged same occurrence.
The High Court has not expressed any final opinion regarding the truthfulness of either version or on the merits of the allegations levelled by the rival sides. Those issues remain open for consideration after the respondents place their objections on record. (JNF) |