Item No. 7 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Date of Prounancement:27.12.2025 Upload on:29.12.2025 CRM(M) No.391/2024 ZUBAIR-UL-RAFIQ & ANR. …PETITIONER(S) Through: Ms. Asifa Padroo, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & Ors. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: None for R1 & R2. Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate- for R3 & R4 CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 27.12.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged FIR No.116/2024 for offences under Section 341, 352, 447 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Handwara. 2. The impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of the report lodged by respondents No.3 and 4. In the report it has been alleged that when the complainants were fencing their land at Krumhoora in order to protect their property, the petitioners came on spot, trespassed into their land, whereafter they caught hold of the complainants and gave blows of fists and kicks to them without any reason. The 2 petitioners also extended threats to the complainants. On the basis of these allegations the impugned FIR came to be registered and investigation of the case was set into motion. 3. The impugned FIR has been challenged on the grounds that the petitioners and the private respondents are closely related to each other. While respondent No.3 is the aunt of the petitioners, respondent No.4 happens to be their grandmother. It has been submitted that there is a longstanding civil dispute existing between the parties in which a number of efforts were made by the local committees for striking a settlement between the parties. It has been submitted that father of the petitioners and their uncle lodged a complaint with the police as the husband of respondent No.3 had tried to grab their ancestral property by committing forgery which resulted in registration of FIR No.74/2023 with Police Station, Handwara. It has been contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the private respondents as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners against them with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners, with whom the private respondents are entangled in a civil litigation. It has been contended that the private respondents are trying to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute between the parties and they are trying to pressurize the petitioners to settle the civil dispute at their terms. It has been further contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the private respondents with an ulterior motive to prosecute and persecute 3 the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are highly qualified holding the degrees of MBBS and B. Tech and because of the impugned FIR, their whole career is at stake. 4. The official respondents have filed their reply to the petition in which it has been submitted that during the course of investigation, all legal formalities were conducted and on the basis of the evidence, it was found that the petitioners are involved in commission of the crime. It has been submitted that the offences have been found established against the petitioners. 5. No reply has been filed by the private respondents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7. A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the petitioners and the private respondents are closely related to each other. While respondent No.3 happens to be the aunt of the petitioners, respondent No.4 happens to be their grandmother. The record further reveals that there is a dispute with regard to ancestral land going on between the parties. The petitioners have placed on record copy of Khasra Girdawari in respect of their ancestral land which shows that name of father of the petitioners is also reflected as one of the owners in possession of the said land, meaning thereby that the land in question is under the joint ownership of petitioners and the private respondents. 4 Once it is shown that the land in question is joint property of the petitioners and the complainants, the offence of criminal trespass is not made out because one co-owner cannot object to the entry of other co-owner in the joint property unless it is shown that partition of the property has been effected. 8. It also appears that father of the petitioners along with his brother has lodged an FIR against the private respondents prior to the lodging of impugned FIR. This goes on to show that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the criminal prosecution launched by father of the petitioners against the husband of respondent No.3. Thus, there appears to be merit in the contention of the petitioners that the impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt on the part of the complainants to wreak vengeance upon them. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the petitioners and the private respondents have now buried the hatchet and the private respondents do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in view of close relations between the parties. 10. In view of the aforesaid development and having regard to the fact that the impugned FIR is manifestly attended with mala fides having been lodged with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its 5 power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C to prevent abuse of process of law and to avoid conversion of a purely civil dispute between the parties into a criminal prosecution. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing No.116/2024 for offences under Section 341, 352, 447 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Handwara, and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 27.12.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No