{"id":350453,"date":"2025-06-12T12:00:09","date_gmt":"2025-06-12T06:30:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350453"},"modified":"2025-06-13T17:45:56","modified_gmt":"2025-06-13T12:15:56","slug":"when-allegations-fall-within-general-exceptions-no-need-to-await-accuseds-proof-jk-and-ladakh-high-court-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/12\/when-allegations-fall-within-general-exceptions-no-need-to-await-accuseds-proof-jk-and-ladakh-high-court-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018No need to await accused\u2019s proof, when allegations fall within General Exceptions\u2019; J&K and Ladakh High Court quashes FIR against Revenue Officials acting under court orders"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:<\/span> In a petition challenging the order dated 25-03-2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vailoo directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioners (Revenue Officers) under Sections 447<\/a>, 354<\/a>, and 506<\/a> IPC<\/a> for forcibly entering into the \u2018named Darul Arifa Hazrat Khadijatul Qubra\u2019 trust premises, harassing female students and using threats., a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dhar, J.<\/span>, allowed the petition and quashed the Magistrate\u2019s order, the FIR and all proceedings stemming from them as they suffered from procedural illegality and were motivated by malice against public officials acting under lawful directions.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/h3>\n

In the instant matter, the complainant-respondent 3 is associated with a trust named Darul Arifa Hazrat Khadijatul Qubra (RA), running a girls\u2019 orphanage with hostel and mess facilities. The trust occupied both proprietary and adjacent state land under the erstwhile J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act (commonly referred to as the \u201cROSHNI Act\u201d), which was later declared unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

On 11-03-2022, officials led by petitioner 1 (Tehsildar, Kokernag) visited the trust premises to enforce eviction orders in compliance with the judgment in S.K. Bhalla<\/span> v. State of J&K<\/span> (PIL No.119\/2011). The complaint alleged that the petitioners forcibly entered the trust premises, harassed female students, locked the kitchen and dining areas, and used threats.<\/p>\n

Moot Points<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Can Magistrate validly direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> without compliance with Sections 154(1)<\/a> and 154(3)<\/a> CrPC<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioners, a government official acting in pursuance of a court judgment, maintainable?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Can vague allegations unsupported by specific facts justify continuation of criminal proceedings?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties\u2019 Contentions<\/h3>\n

    The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged to thwart legitimate eviction action initiated under court orders. The petitioners argued for non-compliance with Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2015) 6 SCC 287<\/a>, where the Supreme Court mandated that applications under Section 156(3)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> be preceded by steps under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was contended that no offence is made out against the petitioners and the allegations were vague and made only to obstruct official duty.<\/p>\n

    However, the State submitted that pursuant to the Magistrate\u2019s direction, investigation commenced, and statements and revenue documents were obtained. It was conceded that the land in question is state land, thus negating the offence under Section 447<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Court\u2019s Observations<\/h3>\n