Serial No. 20 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 399/2022 CrlM(1129/2022) Mohammad Shafi and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M A Wani, Advocate. VERSUS Station House Officer Police Station Drass and Anr. Through: Mr. T M Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Yasmeen Jan, Adv. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 08.07.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the challan arising out of FIR No. 12/2021, for commission of offences under Section 307 IPC which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kargil. 2. Heard and considered. 3. As per the impugned FIR on 12-06-2021, injured Mst Naseema Banoo lodged a report with the police station alleging therein that on the said day when she was irrigating her agricultural land the petitioners launched an attack upon her. She has further alleged that she was assaulted on her head with a spade, as a result which she received grievous injuries. She further alleged that she was dragged from her hair and was given kicks and blows of fists by the petitioners/accused. It was further alleged that when her father came on spot and tried to snatch spade from accused-Reyaz, he assaulted her father as well. 4. The aforesaid allegations made in the FIR are supported by the statements made by the injured and the other eye witnesses whose statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded during the investigation of the case. Copies of these statements have been placed on record by the petitioners along with the petition. The allegations made in the FIR which are supported by the material collected by the investigating agency during investigation of the case, clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. 5. The ground urged for impugning the challan by the petitioner is that the impugned prosecution has been launched against them with a view to wreak vengeance upon them, as there is property dispute going on between the parties. 6. The previous enmity or a property dispute between the parties can be motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners but at the same time the said circumstance can also be a motive for the accused/petitioners to launch an attack upon complainant party. As to which of the two versions is correct, can be ascertained only after the trial of the case. This court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC, cannot hold a mini trial so as to ascertain the veracity of the defence raised by the petitioner in this petition. 7. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 08.07.2025 Sarvar