21 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 32/2024 ABDUL RASHID BHAT AND OTHERS ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Yawar, Adv. V/s SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 06.07.2026 1. The petitioners, have challenged charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 85/2022, for offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 354 of IPC registered with Police Station, Beerwah, District Budgam. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.07.2022, the complainant/respondent No. 3 lodged a written report with the police while he was in an injured condition. In the said report, he submitted that on the said date, he along with cousin brother of Mudasir Ahmad Bhat had gone to purchase meat from the market but they were wrongfully P a g e | 2 CRM(M) No. 32/2024 restrained by Abid Ahmad Bhat and were asked to get down from motor cycle whereafter they were beaten up. It was further alleged that the assailants inflicted injuries on the head of the complainant/Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat. In his complaint, respondent No. 3 also named the petitioners as the accused persons who were involved in the attack upon the complainant and his associates. 3. After registration of the impugned FIR, the police undertook the investigation of the case and after investigation of the case, offences under Section 147, 323, 341, 354 of IPC were found established against the petitioners and the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned charge sheet on the grounds that in the original complaint filed by respondent No. 3, the names of the petitioners did not figure. It has been contended that only Abid Ahmad Bhat had assaulted the complainant and his associates but in the challan all the nine petitioners have been implicated as an accused which clearly shows that the impugned charge sheet P a g e | 3 CRM(M) No. 32/2024 is false and frivolous. It has been further contended that there is a family dispute emanating from the proprietary land of petitioner No. 1 going on between the parties and respondent No. 3 has filed the impugned FIR only with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. It has been further contended that the petitioners have been implicated only after statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.PC were recorded which are quite contrary to the initial report lodged by the complainant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the charge sheet. 6. The very first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the initial complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 is contrary to the record. In the complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 before the Police, names of the petitioners are clearly mentioned on the second page. It is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioners are involved in the assault upon the complainant and his associate. The assertions of P a g e | 4 CRM(M) No. 32/2024 the complainant are supported by statements of eye witnesses recorded during investigation of the case. In fact, the learned trial court has vide its order dated 07.02.2025 already framed charges against the petitioners and the said order has not been challenged before this Court. 7. From the material on record, it prima facie appears that the allegations made in the First Information Report against the petitioners stand substantiated. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the impugned charge sheet does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. 8. So far as the contention of the petitioners that there is family dispute going on between the parties and the impugned charge sheet has been filed to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners is concerned, the same may be a defence available to the petitioners at an appropriate stage of the trial. At this stage when the allegations made in the impugned FIR stand substantiated by the material collected during investigation of the case, this Court is not expected to P a g e | 5 CRM(M) No. 32/2024 undertake a mini trial to determine the veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners. 9. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 06.07.2026 Aasif Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No