Sr. No.91 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Bail App No. 62/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 187/2025 CrlM No. 373/2025 Tahir Pal …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. I.H. Bhat, Advocate. V/s U.T of Jammu and Kashmir …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.03.2025 CRM(M) No. 187/2025 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition has challenged FIR No. 59/2025 for offences under Section 110/310/130/131/61/351/109 of BNS and Section 4/25 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu. 02. As per the contents of the impugned FIR, on 18.02.2025 at around 10:45 PM, while the complainant/respondent No. 6 was closing his shop situated near Mecca Masjid Chowk Bathindi, Jammu, suddenly a group of armed persons comprising 10-15 men, led by the petitioner and four more persons started attacking the cousin of the complainant, namely, Amir Farooq with tokas, rods and sharped edged knives. It is alleged in the FIR that an assault was launched on afore-named victim with an intention to kill him. It has been further alleged that the victim sustained stab wounds on face, knees, hip, chest area and hands, as a result of which, he fell down unconscious on road. The injured was taken to the Government Medical College, Hospital Jammu in a serious condition. On the basis of these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 03. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that there is a business rivalry between the petitioner and the complainant party. It has been contended that on the day of occurrence, complainant/respondent No. 6 along with some other persons entered the office of the petitioner where customers were sitting and the said respondent interrupted the customers and levelled serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner requested the complainant and his associates not to interfere in his business whereupon Amir Farooq took out his pistol and tried to shoot the petitioner but due to timely intervention of persons present over there, he was saved. It has been contended that the petitioner approached Police Post, Bathindi with an application for registering a case against the assailants including the complainant, but the In-charge of the said Police Post refused to entertain the application because SDPO Narwal, who happens to be a relative of Amir Farooq, intervened in the matter. 04. It has been submitted that respondent No.6 directly approached SDPO, Narwal and got the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and others. It has been further submitted that when the complaint filed by the petitioner was not registered by the Police, he had to approach the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax Jammu with a request to register the FIR against the private respondents. The said application is stated to be pending before the said Court. 05. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 06. The ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the FIR which is the subject matter of the present petition is that the same has been lodged by respondent No. 6 with the aid and assistance of SDPO, Narwal- respondent No. 3 who happens to be the cousin brother of the injured-Amir Farooq. It has been contended that the actual version of the occurrence which the petitioner has presented before the Police has not been registered by the Police because of influence of respondent No. 3 as a result whereof, the petitioner had to approach the Judicial Magistrate. 07. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the FIR which is the subject matter of the present petition cannot form a basis for quashing the same. The allegations made in the impugned FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences inasmuch as it is alleged that the petitioner and his associates attacked Amir Farooq with tokas, sharp-edged weapons and lathis which resulted in grievous injuries to him as a result whereof, he fell down unconscious and was taken to the Hospital. These allegations clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a different version of occurrence which has not been registered by the Police, cannot be a ground to quash the impugned FIR. The petitioner has already approached the Judicial Magistrate concerned for redressal of his grievance and it is open to the Police to register counter FIR regarding the same occurrence, in case the learned Magistrate directs to do so. In that eventuality, it shall be open to the Investigating Agency to investigate both versions of the occurrence but in no case, this Court can exercise its powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the impugned FIR merely because there is another version of occurrence possible. All these matters can be subject matter of investigation and cannot be determined in these proceedings. 08. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly Bail App No. 62/2025 The bail application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions in the first instance. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.03.2025 Renu Renu Bala 2025.03.10 21:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document