Date Of Pronouncement:-06.02.2026 vs Vinay Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 436 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Date Of Pronouncement:-06.02.2026 vs Vinay Kumar on 6 February, 2026

                                                                         2026:JKLHC-JMU:213



                                           Sr. No. 04
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
                                          Case No.:CRM(M) No. 714/2023
                                                   CrlM No. 1384/2023

                                      Date of Pronouncement:-06.02.2026
                                               Uploaded on:- 07.02.2026

Chotu Ram                                                   .... Petitioner(s)

                       Through:-        Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
                 V/s

Vinay Kumar                                               .....Respondent(s)

                       Through:-        Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate with
                                        Ms. Tavleen Kour, Advocate.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
                                ORDER

1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the complaint

pending before the Court of Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate

1st Class), Nowshera (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court")

and the order, whereby process has been issued against him for

offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint is

presently under consideration before the trial Court and that the

complainant has already examined himself as well as other

witnesses in support of his case. It is contended that the petitioner

has adequate opportunity to raise all permissible defences before

the trial Court by way of cross-examination and by confronting the

complainant and his witnesses with relevant material, if any.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:213

According to the respondent, interference at this stage is neither

warranted nor justified.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

complainant, being a practicing Advocate, has misused the process

of law and that several FIRs stand registered against him. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint against

the respondent in relation to execution of a fictitious sale deed,

which is stated to be under investigation by the CBI. Allegations of

threats to the petitioner's life and fraudulent withdrawal of

compensation from the Defence Estates Officer, Rajouri, by the

respondent's family have also been raised. On these grounds, it is

contended that the complaint in question is malicious and motivated

by personal vendetta.

4. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in "State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.", learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings

are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and are liable to be

quashed. It has been pointed out that although the respondent

initially sought investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for

offences under Sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC, the trial Court

conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and, upon

examining the complainant and two witnesses, found sufficient

grounds to proceed only for offences under Sections 504 and 506

IPC and issued process accordingly.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:213

5. Have heard the counsels and seen record. The allegations in the

complaint reveal that the complainant was cited as a prosecution

witness in a previous case against the petitioner and that on

28.04.2022, the petitioner came to the Court premises and allegedly

abused and criminally intimidated the complainant. It is further

alleged that the petitioner accused the complainant of being a fake

Advocate involved in preparing forged documents to grab

properties of migrated persons and extended threats despite

intervention by officials. An allegation has also been made that the

petitioner, armed with a dagger concealed in his bag, attempted to

enter the complainant's office.

6. The trial Court, upon examining the complainant and supporting

witnesses including Advocates Lokesh Kumar and Yog Raj, found

prima facie material disclosing commission of offences under

Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The procedure adopted by the trial Court

in conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter

taking cognizance cannot be said to be procedurally defective.

7. It is not in dispute that the complainant is a prosecution witness in a

pending case against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the

contention that the present petition has been filed to deter the

complainant from appearing as a witness cannot be lightly brushed

aside. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be

exercised sparingly with circumspection and only in cases, where

intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law or

to secure the ends of justice.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:213

8. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case falls within

any of the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) so as

to warrant quashment of the proceedings. The disputed questions of

fact and the defences available to the petitioner are matters to be

adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of evidence.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no case for interference is

made out. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly,

dismissed alongwith connected application. Interim directions, if

any, shall stand vacated.

10. However, considering that the complaint is pending since the year

2022, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter

expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments.

(SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 06.02.2026 Ram Krishan