Crl R No. 16/2019
Raaisha (minor) through her mother Sumaira v. Syed Sudhanshu Panday
Decided on: January 27, 2022

CRM(M) No.46/2021
Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat & Anr v. Fida Mohamamd Ayoub
Decided on: December 28, 2021

CRR No.14/2015
Jyoti Bala and Others v. State of J&K
Decided on: December 20, 2021

CR No. 31/2008(O&M)
Meena Bhan v. Ravinder Garyali
Decided on: February 25, 2022

CR No. 54/2021(O&M)
NardevLal and others v. Suresh Sharma and others
Decided on: February 18, 2022

CRM(M) 21/2020
Yasir Amin Khan v. Abdul Rashid Ganie
Decided on: November 22, 2021

WP (Crl) No. 105/2021
Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. Union Territory of JK & Anr.
Decided on: November 12, 2021

OWP No.83/2019
Anjum Afshan & Ors v. State of J&K & Ors.
Decided on: November 10, 2021

CR No. 41/2018
S.K. Puri v. Pradeep Kumar Puri
Decided on: November 09, 2021

MA No. 17/2021
Samitra Devi v. Shree Kumar Kotwal and others
Decided on: November 03, 2021

CRM(M) 134/2019
Tanveer Hussain Khan v. State of J&K & Anr.
Decided on: October 21, 2021

CrLM No. 1242/2021
Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of J&K
Decided on: October 20, 2021

CRMC No.58/2019
Aditya Raj Kaul & Ors. v. Naeem Akhter
Decided on: October 13, 2021

CM(M) No.142/2021
Bilal Ahmad Ganai & ors. v. Sweety Rashid & ors.
Decided on: October 11, 2021

CRMC no.56/2019
Branch Head, J&K Bank Ltd. and another v. Arjmand Shafi
Decided on: October 08, 2021

CM(M) No.127/2021
Mohammad Yaqoob Lone and others v. Hamidullah Lone and others
Decided on: October 05, 2021

CONSW No. 55/2012
Shahzad Khalid v. State of J&K and ors.
Decided on: October 04, 2021

WP(Crl) No. 54/2020
Balbir Chand v. UT of J&K and others
Decided on: August 21, 2021

LPA No. 58/2021
Doulat Ram and Another v. Roop Chand and Others
Pronounced on: August 24, 2021

CIMA No. 100/2013
Chief Engineer & Ors v. M/S K. K. Chibber
Pronounced on: August 21, 2021

AA No. 5/2020
Supinder Kour v. Mdn Edify Education Pvt. Ltd.
Decided on: August 20, 2021

OW 104 No. 02/2015
Puran Chand v. Tarsem Lal
Decided on: August 10, 2021

CRM(M) No.653/2019
Arshad Ahmad Allaie v. UT of J&K & Anr.
Pronounced on: 06 July, 2021

Bail App No.253/2020
Sohan Singh v. Union Territory of J&K
Decided on: 24 June, 2021

CrLA(D) No. 08/2020
Vishal Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through SHO P/S Domana and Anr.
Pronounced on: 02 June, 2021

CM(M)No.1/2021
Amar Nath and Another v. Darshana Kumari & ors.
Decided on: 04 June, 2021

In a petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Court vested in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought quashment of the proceedings initiated by the Trial Court on a suit filed by respondents aggrieved of the fact that the same is third suit in succession filed by the respondent No.1 to 3 on same cause of action and that he has raised the plea of non-maintainability of the suit and sought rejection of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the same is not being decided by the trial court. The Hon’ble Bench held that once a plea of non-maintainability of suit is taken by the party and particularly when a specific application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is moved seeking rejection of the plaint, it is a bounden duty of the civil court trying the suit to first advert to and decide the said application. The Court disposed of the petition directing the trial court to consider and decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the earliest and in any case not later than two months from the date copy of the order is received by the trial court.

CRM (M) 214/2019
Altaf Hussain Mufti v. Javed Choudhary
Decided on: May 20, 2021

“What emerges from the aforesaid analysis it is deducible that both the elements i.e. mens rea and act us rea, sine qua non for constituting an offence of defamation are found missing in the article in question in its entirety. There has been neither any intent on the part of the petitioner to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant respondent herein nor is it discernible that any actual harm has been done to the reputation of complainant respondent herein, more particularly in view of the fact that the complainant respondent herein has been found eligible for promotion as Principal GMC Srinagar by the government. The case of the petitioner indisputably can be said to fall within the above exceptions appended to section 499 IPC.” “As per the mandate of section 267 and 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.), while considering the issue of framing of charge/discharge of the accused, the learned trial court has to form an opinion on the basis of material placed on record by the Investigating Officer as to whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not and the material on record would constitute the statement of witnesses, injury report/post-mortem report along with other material relied upon by the prosecution. At this stage, learned trial court cannot indulge in critical evolution of the evidence, that can be done at the time of final appreciation of evidence after the conclusion of the trial.

CRR No. 27/2010
State of J&K and Anr v. Tanveer Ahmad Salah and Ors
Decided on: May 19, 2021

A Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K while deciding a revision petition preferred against the order passed by the Court of Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla by virtue of which the respondents have been discharged for commission of offences under sections 302, 307 RPC and section 3 of the Public Properties (Prevention of Damages) Act and have been ordered to be charged for commission of offences under sections 304-A, 323, 336, 341, 427, 148 and 149 RPC ,observed that at the stage of considering the issue of framing of charge/discharge of the accused, the trial court should not conduct a mini trial and rather should form an opinion on the basis of material placed on record by the Investigating Officer as to whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not.

CRM(M) No. 146/2021
Zulfikar Hussain Dar v. Aijaz Ahmad Dar
Decided on: May 17, 2021

The Bench while reiterating the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act observed that neither at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint nor at the time of issuance of process the accused in required to be heard in the matter. The accused comes into picture only after the process for his appearance in the criminal complaint is issued and he appears before the Magistrate. Further, while holding that the stage of taking cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint precedes the examination of complainant and his witness under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the Court also delved into the true meaning of the word ‘cognizance’ and at what stage of proceedings the Magistrate is obliged to take it before proceeding further in the matter. It was observed, “cognizance’ in general meaning is said to be ‘knowledge’ or ‘notice’ and taking cognizance of offences means, ‘taking notice’ or ‘become aware of the alleged commission of offence’. The dictionary meaning of the word, ‘cognizance’ is ‘judicial hearing of a matter’. The term ‘cognizance of offence’ is nowhere defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sections 190 to 199 of the Cr.P.C deal with method and the limitations, subject to which various Criminal Court sought to take cognizance of offences.

Bail App. No. 139 of 2020
Badri Nath v. Union Territory of J&K
Decided on: December 11, 2020

The presumption of guilt engrafted in sec 29 of POCSO Act gets triggered and applies only once trial begins, that is after charges are framed against the accused and not before that. But at the time of considering bail application of accused under sec 3, 5, 7 & 9 of POCSO Act, the presumption under sec 29 of the said Act would come into play at the pre-trial stage. It is necessary for all the Special Courts constituted under the POCSO Act within the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh, to ensure that the victim/Child Welfare Committee is informed about the proceedings in bail petitions of the persons accused of having committed offences under the aforesaid Act by issuing prior notice to them. Rejection of bail application by an inferior court does not operate as a bar for the superior court in entertaining similar application on same facts and same offence.

SLA No. 38 of 2018
State of J&K v. Mohd. Imran Khan
Decided on: December 24, 2020

The High court directed all Courts of UT of J&K and Ladakh to avoid disclosing identity of rape survivors in their proceedings and judgments. The Court further issued directions to health professionals of UTs of J&K and Ladakh to desist from undertaking 'two finger test' known as 'per vaginal examination' on rape survivors. Proper measures should be taken to ensure the safety of rape survivors and no arbitrary or unlawful interference should be there with their privacy.

CRM(M) 259 of 2019
Satpal Sharma v. Pawan Singh Rathore, Ex Vice Chairman, JDA
Decided on: December 17, 2020

The order u/sec. 156(3) CrPC is an interlocutory order and no revision against the same lies. In an application under section 156(3) the suspect named in the application under section 156(3) does not have a right to be heard at the time of registration of a F.I.R.

Crl LP(D) 02/2020
Union of India, National Control Bureau v. Rafi Ahmad
Decided on: December 15, 2020

The statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act without corroboration is sufficient to convict an accused, but for that, the court has to be satisfied about its voluntary nature. Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as being barred under the provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

CRMC No. 105 of 2018
Syed Zubair Shah & Ors. v. Farhat Rashid Sheikh
Decided on: December 04, 2020

Once the cause of action for a particular relief is continuing, the application under Domestic Violence Act cannot be dismissed being time barred. Petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the issue of maintainability when there are disputed questions of facts, which require adjudication.