98 Supp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 700/2025 CrlM(1753/2025) MOHAMMAD ANEES WANI ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Dar Khursheed, Adv. V/s UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 14.11.2025 1. The petitioner, has, challenged FIR No. 49/2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 338 of BNSS registered with Police Station, Khanyar, Srinagar. 2. As per the contents of the impugned FIR, wife of the petitioner was admitted in a private hospital at Srinagar namely “Khyber Medical Institute” in connection with surgery relating to knee replacement. It is further alleged that bill of Rs. 3,34,800/- lacs was raised upon the petitioner which he failed to pay but with the intervention of the proprietor of the Hospital, the petitioner along with P a g e | 2 CRM(M) 700/2025 CrlM(1753/2025) the patient was allowed to leave the hospital after undergoing treatment with a condition that he shall deposit the amount later on. It is further alleged that the petitioner produced fake document showing that he had paid the amount of bill. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner with a view to wreak vengeance upon him because the implant which was put in the knee of the patient was of substandard quality and when the petitioner raised hue and cry about this, the respondent lodged the impugned FIR. 4. The question whether the document showing that the petitioner had paid the bill to the Hospital authorities is fake or genuine, is a matter of investigation. Similarly, the question whether the Hospital authorities have lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner to wreak vengeance upon him on account of the alleged dispute raised by him about the standard of implant put inside the knee of the P a g e | 3 CRM(M) 700/2025 CrlM(1753/2025) patient, are all matters, which can be gone into during the course of investigation. 5. Once it is alleged that the petitioner has produced fake document showing that he has paid the amount of bill to the hospital, a cognizable offence is disclosed. It is the statutory duty of the Police to undertake the investigation in the offence. At this stage, intervention of this Court in the investigation is not warranted, as the same would amount to stifling a genuine prosecution. 6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 14.11.2025 Aasif