Serial No. 2 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) CM(1813/2026) IN WP(C) 115/2026 1. Shah Jahan Begum, Aged 31 Years W/O Mohd Tariq D/O Ghulam Mohd 2. Mohd Tariq, Aged 28 Years S/O Sh. Said Mohd Both the residents of Village Bedar, Balnai Tehsil Mandi District Poonch …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: None Vs. 1. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Director General of Police, J&K, Gulshan Ground, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 2. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Poonch 3. The Station House Officer, Mandi 4. Ghulam Mohd S/O Late Abdul Samad 5. Sultan Mohd S/O Shah Mohd 6. Hanifa Begum W/O Sultan Mohd 7. Mohd Khalil 8. Mohd Rafiq 9. Tasweer Ahmed 10. Liaqat Ali All sons of Sultan Mohd and Residents of Village Bedar, Balnai Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Arshid Pervaiz Malik, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE. ORDER 15.04.2026 11. 1. 1. The applicant/respondent No. 4, through the medium of the instant application, seeks recall of the order dated 30.01.2026, passed in WP(C) 115/2026, titled “Shah Jahan Begum and Anr Vs. UT of J&K and Ors”, whereby, the petition was disposed of without issuance of notice to the private respondent Nos. 4 to 10 therein, directing respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to look into the grievances of the petitioners for providing them adequate security and to ensure that nobody interferes with their married life, if the petitioners approach them. It was further stipulated that no opinion was expressed regarding the validity of the marriage of the petitioners, and the police was at liberty to take a view on the basis of the available material and inquiry. It was also directed that if the parties were found to be majors and had married out of their own free will and consent, necessary protection shall be extended to them. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 4 submits that petitioner No. 2- Mohd Tariq, who claimed to have married petitioner No. 1- Shah Jahan Begum, daughter of respondent No. 4 out of his own will, was already a married person and as such petitioner No. 2 had concealed material facts from the Court, which persuaded this Court to grant protection to the petitioners as a married couple. It is further argued that the petitioners had misled the Court by suppressing material facts and swearing false affidavits, as such, they are required to be proceeded against, and the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, passed by this Court in WP(C) 115/2026 is required to be recalled. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 4, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgment rendered in the Criminal Appeal titled „Dexaben Vs. The State of Gujarat” dated 29.07.2022, wherein it has been held that High Court possesses inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which is without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order. 4. Since the petition has been disposed of with sufficient safeguards, following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case titled „Lata Singh Vs. State of UP and Anr.’, 2006 (5) SCC 475, directing the official respondents to provide protection to the petitioners, in case they are found to be majors and have married of their own free will and consent, without expressing any opinion with regard to the validity of their marriage, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the aforestated circumstances, this Court had to pass some order when threat to life or liberty is pleaded by a runaway couple, particularly when the marriage between them is not prohibited and they claim to have married as per their own free will. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 4 that the petitioners suppressed certain facts from the Court may be relevant, however, it cannot be said that the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in any manner, and in case the applicant has any cause of action against the petitioners, he is at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies. 6. The application, being misconceived, is dismissed in limine. (M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 15.04.2026 “Adil Ismail”