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