HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRMC No.296/2015 CrlM No.260/2019[01/2019] IA No.01/2015 Mohd. Akbar & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Virender Dev Singh, Advocate. q vs State of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 15.09.2025 01. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of a criminal challan titled ‘State V. Sher Mohd. & Ors.’. 02. As factual narration of the present case, from the status report filed by the official respondents would emerge, on 01.08.2014, one Abdul Ghani lodged a written report with Police Station, Arnas, against the petitioners, stating inter alia, that on 16.06.2020, he went to Srinagar for labour, leaving behind his wife and children. On 23.07.2020, he received a call from his home that his 16 years old minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as “the prosecutrix”) was forcibly abducted by Akbar Ali and others and he had failed to locate his daughter. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.43/2014 for offences under Sections 366/363/376/342/109 RPC came to be registered and the investigation culminated in the impugned charge sheet. 03. Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned charge sheet, inter alia, on the grounds that prosecutrix is legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1, who had contracted Nikah on 17.07.2014. The prosecutrix filed a criminal complaint against her father, mother and brother on 24.07.2014, before Munsiff, Jammu alleging that on 23.07.2014, her parents and brother forced her to marry some old man and on her refusal, she was physically thrashed by her parents and brother. It Sr. No. 22 2 is contention of the petitioners that neither the complainant nor the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., recorded during investigation, disclosed these facts. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the impugned charge sheet is an abuse of the process of law. 04. Though this Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to prevent the miscarriage of justice, however, it is a settled position of law that this Court while exercising such powers, cannot embark upon an inquiry or a mini trial as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR or the charge sheet. 05. A perusal of the status report reveals that statement of prosecutrix came to be recorded during investigation, in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she not only supported the complaint lodged by her father but also levelled serious allegations against the petitioners alleging that she was minor at the time of occurrence, she was forcibly abducted by the petitioners and repeatedly ravished by petitioner No.1 on various occasions. The pleas raised by the petitioners are required to be proved by them in defence during trial and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNS, cannot determine the disputed question of facts raised in the present petition. 06. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is found devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s). Learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the trial. Interim direction dated 08.07.2015 shall stand vacated. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 15.09.2025 Eva