HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bail App No. 238/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 848/2025 Shafiq Ahmed …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Matloob Hussain Mughal, Advocate. q vs UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 08.09.2025 CRM(M) No. 848/2025 01. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (for short “BNSS”) for quashment of FIR No. 0417/2025, for offences under Sections 49/351(2)/352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 primarily on the ground that a civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal colour which is not permissible in law and that the contents of FIR do not disclose the commission any offence against him. 02. A perusal of FIR reveals that on 18.08.2025, private respondent/complainant, Rafia Kouser, lodged a written report with Police Station, Rajouri, alleging inter alia that her husband has gone to Soudi Arabia for labour. She along with her old mother-in-law and children were at home. Accused persons Shafiq Ahmed (the petitioner) and Sajad Hussain intended to develop relations with her and on her dissuasion, they started Sr. No. 05 Bail App No. 238/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 848/2025 threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant goes on to allege that the accused persons threatened that they will not leave her for anyone and will follow her wherever she would go and ruin her image, in case any complaint was filed against them. It is further alleged by the complaiant that on 08.08.2025, her son went to a spring to fetch water and accused made a murderous assault on her son, when she went to rescue her son from the clutches of the accused, the accused persons used abusive language against her and threatened to kill her family one day. It is also alleged by the complainant that wherever she goes, she is followed by the accused persons including the petitioner and they even made her video and put it on the social media. On the receipt of this report, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and co-accused. 03. Though this Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, however, it is trite that it is to be exercised with care and circumspection. The Court while considering the plea for quashement of FIR or the complaint, as the case may be, cannot embark upon an enquiry or mini trial, as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint or FIR. 04. The contents of the impugned FIR, prima facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing in the present petition to suggest that there is any civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the private respondent and even if, it is there, it is required to be proved by the petitioner, by way of defence in a full- Bail App No. 238/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 848/2025 dressed trial only. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot determine the controverted facts between the parties. 05. For the aforesaid reasons, present petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed along with connected CM(s). Bail App No. 238/2025 Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the present bail application with liberty to approach the concerned Court. His statement is taken on record. Hence, the present bail application is dismissed as withdrawn along with connected CM(s). (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 08.09.2025 Sushant