MOHD KHALIQ v. UT OF J AND K TH SECRETARY LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS JAMMU AND OTHERS
LPA/151/2025 · 2025-08-06
Rajnesh Oswal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4105 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4105 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court
Case No.: - LPA No. 151/2025
in WP (C) No. 1648/2025
CM No. 4756/2025
Mohd. Khaliq ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s)
Through :- Present in person.
v/s UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
06.08.2025
This is an intra court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the order dated July 04, 2025.
A bare reading of the order that is being assailed shows that the learned Single Judge, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, had
directed the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal to dispose of the criminal Case FIR No. 38/2020 (UT of J&K and others vs. Mohd. Khaliq), reserved on July 01, 2025, as early as possible:
“The petitioner present in person submits that on 01.07.2025, the case was heard and reserved for
consideration and judgment. This Court requests the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal to extend expeditious disposal to the pending case and in case if it is ripe or reserved for the judgment then the needful be done as early as possible ensuring fairness in the matter of
consideration of the case so as not to cause prejudice to either of the two parties. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal by the Registrar Judicial, Jammu for notice and compliance.
Disposed of.”
Upon being pointedly asked, the appellant, who appears in person, submits that the judgment has since been pronounced on July 09, 2025 and
Sr. No. 31
-2- LPA No. 151/2025
further that the learned trial court though has acquitted him but has not considered his defence at all.
In the wake of the above and more particularly when no other issue is raised by appellant present in person during his submissions, we see no ground to interfere in the matter. Needless to assert that the appellant, if aggrieved, by the said decision is at liberty to avail such other remedies as may be admissible in law.
Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU 06.08.2025 Pawan Chopra
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No
Pawan Chopra 2025.08.08 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document