1 | P a g e Serial No. 41 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 130/2023 CrlM(320/2023) KACHO AMIR KHAN AND ANR …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Kachoo Manzoor, Advocate VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH (HOME DEPARTMENT) (LADAKH CASE) Through: Ms. Yasmina, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 03-06-2026 1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.02.2023, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil, whereby challan filed by Police Station, Kargil against the petitioners arising out of FIR No. 33/2020 for offences under Sections 188, 353 & 506 IPC., has been returned. However, learned trial Court has also directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that impugned challan came to be filed by the Police Station, Kargil, against the petitioners, alleging commission of offences under Sections 188, 506 and 353 IPC. The challan was filed after undertaking investigation in FIR No. 33/2020. Initially, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil took cognizance of the offences, and the matter was heard by the learned trial Court for framing of charges. It is at this stage that the petitioners by way of a revision petition challenged the order of the learned trial Court whereby the cognizance of 2 | P a g e offences was taken. The Principal Sessions Judge, allowed the revision petition vide its order dated 26.10.2022, and directed the learned trial Court to pass a fresh order after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Cr.PC. 4. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the legal position laid down in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that the Investigating Agency could not have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, as in a case relating to offence under Section 188 IPC., the Court can take cognizance of the offences only on the basis of a complaint made by the public servant whose order has been violated. To this extent, the order of the learned trial Court is perfectly in accordance with law, but the difficulty has arisen because learned trial Court has directed further investigation of the case, which, in the circumstances, could not have been extended by the learned trial Court. A direction for further investigation of the case can be extended only if the Magistrate finds that there has been any lacuna in the investigation of the case or any aspect of the matter has not been properly investigated by the Investigating Agency. Such a direction cannot be issued in a case where there is defect in filing of the challan before the Court. The proper course for the learned Magistrate was to return the challan, and give liberty to the complainant to take appropriate course available under law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that once it is found that no cognizance would be taken on the basis of the challan, the learned trial Magistrate ought to have recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of the petitioner. 6. I am afraid the contention is bereft of any legal force, for the reason that the filing of challan in a case to which provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., are attracted is only a technical defect. It is always open to the public servant whose 3 | P a g e order has been violated to file a complaint, even if the challan filed is not entertained by the Court on account of bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.02.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil, to the extent of direction regarding further investigation of the case is set aside. The public servant concerned is at liberty to take appropriate course in the matter. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 03-06-2026 Aadil