FAROOQ AHMED v. U T OF J AND K TH POLICE STATION SURANKOTE
CRM(M)/936/2022 · 2025-05-26
Rajesh Sekhri
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4953 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4953 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 936/2022
Farooq Ahmed
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nadeem Bhat, Advocate. q
vs
UT of J&K
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Rahul K. Parihar, Advocate with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, Advocate.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER 26.05.2025
Petitioner is aggrieved of final report in terms of Section 173 Cr. P. C., filed against him and consequent proceedings initiated in the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch [“the trial Court”] in a case titled “State v. Niyamat-ulla and Ors.”, arising out of FIR No. 280/2018 for offences under Sections 376, 363, 109 RPC, primarily on the ground that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. recorded during investigation had categorically exonerated the petitioner from the commission of any offence and still a final report came to be presented against him. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner by way of CrlM No. 1977/2022 and perusal of the same transpires that prosecutrix has clearly stated in the said statement that the petitioner/accused did not do any wrong to her and that he was not involved in any offence. The prosecutrix respondent No. 2 has also appeared in this Court and filed objections, whereby, in para 4, she has clearly stated that her statement was recorded by the investigating agency before Judicial Magistrate on 12.10.2019, where she had stated that petitioner had not committed anything wrong but the concerned S.H.O. intentionally and deliberately produced challan against the petitioner. Sr. No. 119
2 CRM(M) No. 936/2022
In view of the above, since the prosecutrix/respondent No. 2 has not alleged anything against the petitioner in her statement under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. and has no objection, to the petition on hand, hence, the present petition is allowed and chargesheet against the petitioner is quashed.
Disposed of.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu 26.05.2025 Sushant