HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 166/2025 Anita Sharma, Aged 62 years, W/o Shiv Kumar Sharma, R/o 23-B/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate v/s 1. UT of J & K through Commissioner Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. UT of J & K through SHO Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu. 3. Raj Daluja, S/o Daswandi Ram, R/o 192/1, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 1 5. 0 9. 2 0 2 5 1. This is an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent of the High Court challenging an interim order dated 22.07.2025 [“the impugned order”] passed by the learned Single Judge in CRM (M) No. 437/2024 titled “Anita Sharma Vs. UT of J & K & Ors.”, whereby the learned Single Judge has vacated/modified its earlier order dated 07.06.2024 and provided that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to proceed with the investigation of the impugned FIR and update the learned Single Judge about the latest status of the investigation. 2. Although, the issue with regard to the maintainability of the LPA against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in the exercise Sr. No. 02 2 LPA No. 166/2025 of the criminal jurisdiction, is pending consideration before the larger Bench in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion by the two Division Benches of this Court, yet having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, this appeal is taken up for consideration. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge modifying its earlier order does not spell out reasons for modification. That apart, we have gone through the contents of the FIR and are of the prima facie view that the appellant herein does have a prima facie case for grant of interim order of protection. 4. Without going into the merits of the controversy lest it may prejudice either side, we dispose of this appeal by providing as under: “That the investigation in FIR No. 0048 of 2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the RPC registered with Police Station Economic Offences Wing Crime Branch on 16.05.2023 shall proceed, however, the filing of the charge-sheet shall depend upon the decision of CRM (M) No. 437/2024, pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge.” (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 15.09.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No