1 CRM(M) 93/2025 S. No. 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 93/2025 VIKAS KUMAR AND ANR …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Hussain Dar, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJPORA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Asifa Padroo, advocate. Mr. Furkan Yaqoob, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 10.09.2025 (ORAL) 1. The petitioners in the instant petition have invoked the inherent power of this Court enshrined under Section 528 BNSS as also extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 92/2024 (For short “impugned FIR”), registered with Police Station Rajpora, Pulwama for commission of offence under Section 318 (4) of BNSS. 2. Record available on the file reveals that the impugned FIR owes its origin to a complaint filed by respondent 2 herein, wherein the said complainant/respondent 2 herein stated that, he is dealing with the fruit business at Fruit Mandi Prichoo, Pulwama and that one person namely Mudsair Ahmad Lone along with his father Gulzar Ahmad Lone, residents of Kunzer Kralwat, Baramula, presently at Udhampur, approached him in connection with the apple fruit business and persuaded him to sell them the apples as a consequences whereof, the complainant/respondent 2 herein under their instructions transported apples to one Universal Agriventure Pvt. Ltd. Dheradun amounting to Rs. 25,55,9100/- and in return thereof received 2 CRM(M) 93/2025 an amount of Rs. 28,42,000/- through bank account and freight and that the bills qua the supply of said apples was also got issues by the said person in the name of the said Universal Agriventure Pvt. Ltd. as also in the name of one Zameer Traders-APMC Fruit Market Vashi Navi Mumbai, and that when the complainant/respondent 2 herein demanded from the said persons outstanding balance amount for the supply of apples, the said persons initially avoided to repay the same and subsequently informed the complainant/respondent 2 that they have no concern with the supply of the said apples and that the balance amount has to be recovered from the Firm to which the apples stand supplied by him and that in this view of the matter, the complainant/respondent 2 herein came to be cheated by the said persons in connivance with the said Firms. 3. Record also reveals that a preliminary enquiry came to be conducted by the police upon receipt of the said complaint in which enquiry it transpired that the complainant/respondent 2 herein stands cheated and the offence covered in the FIR committed by the accused persons. 4. The petitioners herein have called in question the impugned FIR in the instant petition on the premise that the complaint of the complainant/respondent 2 herein as also the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence whatsoever, except that a grievance stands lodged by the complainant/respondent 2 against one Mudasir Ahmad Lone and his father constituting a civil dispute, inter se them and that the petitioners were never named in the complaint or else in the FIR under challenge by the complainant/respondent 2 as accused persons and that no offence much less the offence of cheating has been alleged as well in the complaint or the FIR under challenge against the petitioner herein. 5. Response to the petition has been filed by the respondent 2, besides a status report as well stands filed by the respondent 1. 3 CRM(M) 93/2025 6. In the status report filed by the respondent 1 herein, it is being stated that after registration of the FIR under challenge upon a complaint filed by the respondent 2 herein, investigation was set into motion which revealed that the petitioners herein hatched a conspiracy to induce the complainant/respondent 2 herein to supply the apples and consequently fraudulently extracted worth lakhs and crores of apple from the complainant/respondent 2 herein in league and connivance with Gulzar Ahmad Lone S/O Mohammad Munawar Lone and Mudasir Ahmad S/O Gulzar Ahmad Lone, both residents of Kralwat, Kunzar, Baramulla and that the petitioners have been found to be involved in a well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy with intent to defraud innocent civilians under the guise of a business entity, namely Universal Agriventure Pvt. Ltd. and that it also surfaced that the petitioners and their close family members are habitual offenders involved in similar FIRs registered against them at various Police Stations of the country including in Ambala City and Vasant Vihar, Dheradun and that on account of the involvement of the petitioners in such financial frauds having surfaced during the course of investigation, commission of an organized crime under Section 111 BNS also came to be added in the FIR under challenge. 7. 7. In the response filed by the respondent 2 herein to the petition a similar version has been stated as has been stated in the complainant on the basis of which the FIR under challenge has been registered against the petitioners, as such, in order to avoid repetition, the averments and contentions of the objections are not referred herein. However, it is being also alleged that the petitioners are habitual offenders having cheated innocent people throughout India and that the FIR needs to be investigated fully by the investigating agency in order to ascertain the actual involvement of the petitioners and other accused persons. 4 CRM(M) 93/2025 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Counsel for the petitioners herein while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised in the petition and would insist that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners covered in the impugned FIR are missing and that the allegations leveled against the petitioners by the complainant/respondent 2 herein at the most constitute a civil dispute and does not attract a criminal liability and that as such, impugned FIR is, an abuse of process of law. 9. On the contrary the counsel for both the respondents vehemently oppose the submissions of counsel for the petitioners and would insist that the investigation under the impugned FIR cannot be scuttled at its initial stage having regard to the case set up by the complainant in the complaint as also the investigation so for conducted by the investigating agency which revealed the commission of offences covered in the FIR committed by the petitioners and other accused persons. 10. Insofar as, the exercise of inherit power enshrined under Section 528 BNSS is concerned, the ambit and scope of the same stands detailed out by the Apex Court in a series of judgments and it has been the consistent view expressed by the Apex Court that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering a petition for quashing of an FIR/proceedings under inherent power and that minute consideration of evidence and defense put-forth at the stage of exercise of inherit power enshrined under Section 528 BNSS is not permissible. The said view has been expressed by the Apex Court in case tilted as “Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh”, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 and in case titled as “CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686”. A similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in case titled as “Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra”, (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein it has also been held 5 CRM(M) 93/2025 by the Apex Court that if the factual foundation of offence has been laid down in a complaint by the complainant, the High Court should not quash a criminal complaint/proceedings during the investigation stage merely on premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated in detaile in the complaint. 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and having regard to the case in hand, as also the record available on the file it seemingly is a case where the impugned FIR may not be quashed and instead the investigating agency should be given a free hand to investigate the FIR from all angles. 12. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed herein above, the instant petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed and interim direction, if any, subsisting as on date shall also stands vacated. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 10.09.2025 “Ab.Rashid” Whether the order speaking: Yes/No. Whether approved for reporting:- Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :16.09.2025 10:04