Serial No. 10 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 249/2023 CrlM(620/2023) CrlM(660/2023). MUSHTAQ AHMAD MIR AND OTHERS(SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. H. Furrahi, Advocate. VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANOTHER. Through: Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA. I.O Bashir Ah, of P/s D.H. Pora District Kulgam. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 25.07.2025 01. The petitioners through the medium of the instant petition have challenged FIR No. 18/2024 for commission of offences under Sections 147, 354, 457, 447 and 392 of the IPC registered with Police Station D.H.Pora. 02. As per the contents of the impugned FIR, on 29.07.2022, petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the Orchard of the complainant (respondent No.3), when they were armed with clubs and sharp-edged weapons. They gave a beating to the complainant and his family members. The clothes of the complainant’s wife were torn and she was dragged on ground as a result of which her modesty was outraged. It has also been alleged that an amount of Rs. 5000/- was taken away by the petitioners from the spot of occurrence. Furthermore, the petitioners are also alleged to have caused damage to the crops growing on the land in question. 03. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the same has been lodged after a delay of more than eight months of the occurrence without there being any explanation in the impugned FIR as regards the aforesaid delay. It has been further contended that there is a property dispute going on between the petitioners and the complainant party since decades and on the basis of the previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR with a view to harass them. It has also been submitted that in previous past FIR No. 112/2013 was lodged by the complainant party against the petitioners. It is further contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR do not make out any case against the petitioners. 04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the Case Diary which has been produced by I.O. Sh. Bashir Ah, of Police Station D.H. Pora. 05. A perusal of the Status Report filed by the respondent-Investigating Agency would reveal that during investigation of the case, statement of wife of the complainant namely Ms. Haseena Begum under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded and on the basis of her statement, offence under Section 392 IPC was dropped and the offences under Sections 379, 201 IPC were incorporated. Petitioner No.4 namely Showkat Ahmad Mir has been dropped form the array of accused as charges levelled against him were not established during the investigation of the case. It has been further submitted that the offences under Sections 147, 451, 447, 379 IPC stand established against the petitioners namely Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, Jan Mohammad Mir, Rayees Ah Mir, Ab. Rashid Ganaie, Sajad Ah. Khan, Nusrat Jan, and offences under Sections 147, 451, 447, 354, 379, 201 IPC stands established against petitioners namely Mohammad Jabbar Khan. 06. Case Diary produced by the I.O reveals that the investigation in the case is almost complete and only challan is required to be filed against the aforesaid accused. As is clear from the contents of the impugned FIR, cognizable offences are stated to have been committed by the petitioners and after investigation of the case, some of these cognizable offences were found established against the petitioners excepting petitioner namely Showkat Ahmad Mir. The allegations made in the impugned FIR stand substantiated by the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation of the case. It is not a case where the allegations made in the FIR are bereft of any substance but it is a case where Investigating Agency has found that the same are substantiated by the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case. 07. Insofar as the delay in lodging of the impugned FIR is concerned, the reasons for the same is subject matter of investigation, and it is for the Investigating Agency to ascertain as to what would be the effect of such delay upon the merits of the prosecution case. This can be done by the Investigating Agency after analyzing the material collected during investigation of the case. 08. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a property dispute going on between the parties and that the same has prompted the complainant party to falsely implicate the petitioners in the impugned FIR is an issue which cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings. A property dispute between the parties is a double-edged weapon, it can act as a motive for false implication or it can also be a motive for committing the crime. Ultimately, it is for the Investigating Agency to ascertain the veracity of the case lodged by the complainant party in light of the material that may be collected by it during the course of investigation of the case. This Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC cannot hold a mini-trial in order to ascertain the veracity of aforesaid defence of the petitioners. 09. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Case Diary be returned to the Investigating Officer present in the Court. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 Showkat Khan