Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 504 (JK)

MOHD ASLAM v. UT OF J AND K TH S.H.O. POLICE STATION AMBGHAROTA AND ANOTHER

CRM(M)/760/2025 · 2026-02-27

Rajesh Sekhri

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.760/2025 CrlM No.1430/2025 CR Mohd. Aslam …..Petitioner/Applicant(s) Through: Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K & Anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 27.02.2026 01. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for the quashment of FIR No.0063/2025 registered with Police Station Amb Gharota for offences under Sections 132/329 (3)/125/115(2) BNS at the behest of respondent No.2, Tehsildar Bhalwal, District Jammu. 02. Background facts of the case are that on 27.05.2025, Police Station, Gharota received a communication from private respondent No.2-Tehsildar (EMIC) Bhalwal alleging inter alia that one Mohd. Aslam, petitioner herein, encroached the common Bandobasti Road in Khasra No.549 of Village Galali by filling up with soil and stones and during the removal of encroachment process by the revenue officials, he attacked them with stones and obstructed the Government Officials in discharge of their Government duty. On the basis of this report, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 03. Though the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is vested with power to prevent the abuse of process of law of any Court, however, it is settled in law that, if contents of an FIR, prima facie disclose the Sr. No. 19 2 commission of cognizable offence/offences, investigation cannot be scuttled at the threshold. 04. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid principle of law, the allegations against the petitioner are serious that he encroached upon a Bandobasti Road and when the revenue agency was trying to remove the encroachment, he attacked the revenue officials and obstructed them in discharge of their official duty. 05. In view of the above, present petition is found devoid of merit, hence dismissed. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to file final report. 06. Disposed of along with connected application(s). 07. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 27.02.2026 Eva