S. No. 7 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 310/2023 Mohammad Ismail Bajaad and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad Sofi, Advocate Vs. Siraj-ud-Din Chowhan and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Suhail Mehraj, Advocate vice Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 23.07.2025 1. Quashing of Order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora (for short “the Trial Court”) in a complaint titled as “Siraj-ud-Din Chowhan and Others vs. Mohd Ismail Bajaad and Others” and proceedings emanating therefrom, is sought for in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, on the ground that the Trial Court without recording any reason as to what offence has been committed by the accused, has taken cognizance and that the contesting respondents in the complaint have admitted that the parties are already litigating before the civil court on the subject matter of the suit where order dated 20.05.2022 has been passed. 2. Briefly stated facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that the petitioners and some of the proforma respondents are in possession of Bahak Jaroogi at Tri Sangam under Survey No.42/5, where they are pasturing their cattle for last more than forty years and the contesting respondents were causing interference with their possession and pasturing their cattle. The petitioners and some other proforma respondents have filed a suit for injunction against the contesting respondent and their musclemen before the Trial Court, in which interim direction dated 20.05.2022 was granted in favor of plaintiffs/ petitioners herein and defendants were restrained; meaning thereby that plaintiffs have been allowed to graze the sheep in the Behak situated at Trisangam Bandipora till objections are filed and considered or till further orders. Thereafter in terms of order dated 29.05.2023, police authorities were directed to comply the order dated 20.05.2022 on spot in letter and spirit. It is also averred in the petition that the contesting defendants in the aforesaid suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of said suit on the ground that civil court has no jurisdiction. The application of defendants was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2022 and against the said order, the defendants filed a petition being WP(C) No. 291/2022, which too came to be dismissed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the contesting respondents, in order to counter the suit in which they were restrained to interfere with the suit property of the petitioners, have filed complaint, which is sheer abuse of process of law. 4. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the suit of petitioners is pending before the Trial Court in which restrain order has been passed in favour of petitioners. He also admits that the application of respondents 1 to 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as well as their petition bearing WP(C) No. 291/2022 came to be dismissed. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 in their complaint have stated that they are in possession of suit property in respect of which restrain order has been passed against them. The respondents 1 to 3, when failed to get order in their favour in the civil suit filed before the Trial Court, preferred a complaint. The Trial Court while granting injunction against the respondents 1 to 3 have recognized the possession of the petitioners qua the suit property. The complaint filed by respondents 1 to 3 as well as cognizance taken in it, is, thus, sheer abuse of process of law and is required to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned complaint, proceedings initiated thereon and orders, if any, passed therein are quashed. 6. Having regard to the frivolous complaint filed by respondents 1 to 3, they are liable to pay costs as the filing of complaint have compelled and forced the petitioners to approach this Court by way of instant petition, therefore, the payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- are imposed upon respondents 1 to 3 which shall be paid by them to petitioners. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 25.07.2025 09:55