Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Syed Basharat Hussain Shah vs Dr. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah on 20 February, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 06.02.2025
Pronounced on 20.02.2025
CRM(M) No. 774/2021
Syed Basharat Hussain Shah .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. K. M. Bhatti, Adv.
vs
Dr. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Shakoor A. Malik, Adv.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the proceedings of
the criminal complaint tilted, 'Dr. Syed Basharat Mumtaz Hussain Shah vs
Syed Bhasharat Hussain Shah" under Sections 499 and 500 IPC pending
before the court of learned Sub-Judge Surankote (hereinafter to be referred
as 'the trial court'), on the ground that the petitioner has never used such
words for the respondent as alleged in the complaint and the alleged
recording would show that the petitioner did not utter such words for the
respondent. It is also urged by the petitioner that the petitioner referred to
those people, in general, who were running after worldly status by wrong
means and doing sins and has never named any person including the
respondent. It is also contended that the plaint filed by the respondent was
rejected and because of civil dispute, the present complaint has been filed
just to harass the petitioner.
2. Objections stand filed by the respondents, stating therein that the suit with
regard to the Waqf property was filed by the respondent one month after the
filing of the complaint, which clearly proves that there was no civil dispute
pending between the respondent and the petitioner prior to the filing of the
complaint. The petitioner named the respondent while delivering sermons
during the Friday prayers at Jamia Masjid, Surankote on 01.01.2021 i.e. the
date of occurrence and he deliberately used filthy, abusive and defamatory
words against the respondent. The video of the incident was recorded by
some people participating in the Friday prayers when the petitioner named
the respondent and started using abusive language that the respondent was a
drunkard, rapist, criminal and remained involved in the criminal acts during
whole of his life and it was done by the petitioner solely to lower down the
reputation and image of the respondent. It is further stated that after the
process was issued, the complainant was examined and two witnesses were
also produced by the complainant-respondent, who have been cross-
examined by the petitioner before filing of the present petition and the
present petition has been filed just to stall the proceedings before the learned
trial court.
3. Mr. K. M. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has not named the respondent during his sermons and the false and
frivolous proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner because of
civil dispute. He has further argued that in the video placed on record by the
petitioner, the name of the respondent nowhere figures in the sermons of the
petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mr. Shakoor Ahmed Malik, learned counsel for the respondent
has argued that the petitioner had, in fact, named the respondent and
thereafter used defamatory words just to defame the respondent, who has
retired as Deputy Director, Health Services and the trial has begun and even
statements of the witnesses have also been recorded. PW Mohd. Rashid
Khan has clearly stated about the defamatory language used by the petitioner
during sermons on 01.01.2021.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent filed a complaint before
the Sub-Judge, Surankote under Sections 499 and 500 IPC on 07.01.2021
alleging therein that the petitioner on 01.01.2021 while addressing the
congregation on loudspeaker during Friday prayers deliberately used filthy,
abusive and defamatory words against the respondent that the respondent
was a drunkard, rapist and criminal and throughout his life remained
involved in criminal acts. The petitioner deliberately used these words to
lower the image and reputation of the petitioner among the public. The
respondent has also placed on record CD containing the alleged defamatory
language used by the petitioner during sermons.
7. The learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant and
one witness, has issued the process against the petitioner. Mr. K. M. Bhatti
has contended that the petitioner has never used the defamatory language
during his address on the alleged day of incident. The respondent has
annexed the CD alongwith complaint with regard to the sermons delivered
by the petitioner. The trial has started and the statements of the complainant
and two witnesses have already been recorded. PW Mohd. Rashid Khan has
stated that during sermons, the petitioner took the name of the respondent
and used defamatory language. The contention of the petitioner that he did
not name the petitioner, as in the recording, the name of the petitioner is
nowhere mentioned, cannot be considered at this stage. Once the trial has
started and the complainant and two witnesses have been examined, it is for
the trial court to arrive at a conclusion after due appreciation of the evidence
as to whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not. The petitioner
has raised disputed questions of facts, which cannot be considered at this
stage while examining the legality of the proceedings pending before the
learned trial court pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent.
8. Viewed thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present
petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to raise the grounds urged in
the present petition during the trial. Needless, to say that this Court has not
made any observation with regard to the merits of the claim of either of the
parties.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
20.02.2025
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
