Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Vivek Batra vs Union Territory Through Police on 12 March, 2026
Serial No. 101
Suppl. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 122/2026 CrlM (291/2026)
Vivek Batra
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Sr. Advocate (virtually) with
Mr. Danish Majid, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory Through Police
Station Rajbagh And Another
...Respondent(s).
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
12.03.2026
1. Issue notice to the respondents in the main as well as in the interim application returnable by the next date of hearing, subject to taking of steps for service within a period of two weeks for filing of reply/objections.
2. Heard Mr. A.M. Dar, ld. Sr. Advocate (virtually) in respect of his prayer for grant of relief in the interim application bearing No. CrLM No. 291/2026.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that case FIR No. 1/2026 dated 08.01.2026 came to be registered with the Police Station, Rajbagh Srinagar under Sections 62, 64, 74, 115(2), 324(4), 326(g), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, on the basis of false, frivolous and distorted facts. He contended that the impugned FIR on its plain reading and in the backdrop of the admitted circumstances preceding its registration, is ex facie mala fide, illegal, unsustainable and implicitly actuated by ulterior motives with an attempt to convert a subsisting civil and possession dispute into a coercive criminal prosecution of the gravest kind so as to put pressure on the petitioner to compromise his legitimate/legal rights.
4. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a Retired Commissioner of Income Tax and a law abiding citizen of India who after retirement has engaged himself in legitimate entrepreneurial activity through various corporate entities including Waahkashmir Hospitality Private Limited, in the sectors of hospitality, tourism and allied services in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. That in or around April 2025, he, through the said company, entered into an arrangement with the private respondent in respect of one villa forming part of premises situated at 151, Toshkhani Niwas, Rajbagh, Srinagar, for use as office-cum-residential premises in connection with the company's business. That acting upon the representation of the private respondent he was competent to create such arrangement, he paid advance money on 14.04.2025 and entered into peaceful possession on 15.04.2025, shifted his office operations, installed staff, furniture, fixtures and equipment, and incurred substantial expenditure on renovation and adaptation of the premises. That though a draft rent agreement dated 23.04.2025 was exchanged and the arrangement was acted upon, the private respondent subsequently began evading formal execution of the lease documentation and sought to create uncertainty regarding title and authority, despite having already placed him in possession.
That as the disputes regarding possession and formalization of the tenancy arrangement escalated, his company was constrained to institute civil proceedings before the competent court at Srinagar. That in those proceedings, the learned Commercial Court / Additional District Judge granted an order of status quo on 01.08.2025 protecting his possession. That even after the said proceedings later encountered a jurisdictional impediment, he promptly approached the proper forum and obtained yet another order of status quo from the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar on 11.12.2025. That well before registration of the impugned FIR, the dispute between the parties had already entered the judicial realm and the issue of possession over the subject premises had become sub judice. That the existence of these civil proceedings and the subsisting protective orders form the central backdrop against which the impugned FIR must be examined.
The ld. Counsel further contended that as specifically pleaded in the petition, the petitioner, throughout 2025, repeatedly approached the police and other authorities complaining of interference, intimidation, threats and disruptive conduct on the part of the private respondent and his wife, including incidents of misbehavior with female staff members working at the premises. That the written complaints and communications were addressed to the police authorities in May, June, July, September and November 2025, yet no meaningful action was taken. That it is the consistent case of the petitioner that despite being placed on notice of the escalating civil discord and threats faced by him and his staff, the local police remained inactive, only to swing into motion when the private respondent, after the grant of civil protection in his favour, lodged the impugned complaint on 08.01.2026. That the allegations in the impugned FIR are of an extreme and sensational nature. That they allege, inter alia, that on 08.01.2026 he, along with others, arrived armed with iron rods, hammers and tools, broke open the gate and locks, trespassed into the residential portion of the premises, assaulted members of the household, molested the complainant's wife, attempted sexual assault, extended threats and sprinkled petrol with an attempt to set the premises ablaze.
That the petitioner categorically denies the occurrence in the manner alleged and asserts that the accusations are wholly false, grossly exaggerated and deliberately framed so as to attract the harshest penal provisions for the sole purpose of securing immediate arrest, public humiliation and an upper hand in the underlying property dispute. That the chronology pleaded in the petition unmistakably demonstrates that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the civil proceedings and an effort to accomplish through criminal process what the private respondent could not secure in civil law. That the petition further highlights that he was not absconding or evading process. That he was contacted by the police, disclosed his whereabouts, cooperated with the authorities and yet was subjected to coercive action in a manner suggestive of pre- determined intent rather than fair investigation.
The ld. Senior Counsel further contended that it is specifically pleaded that the alleged incident dated 08.01.2026 was contemporaneopaly video recorded by him and certain co-accused present at the spot, precisely to safeguard against false allegations in the setting of the ongoing dispute. That the said recording preserved in a pen drive and available for production before this Court as and when directed, is stated to be a contemporaneous and unedited electronic record within the meaning of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and is asserted to completely belie the prosecution version. That the Petition also points out that the CCTV footage from and around the premises, which would have been the best independent evidence of the alleged occurrence, was neither properly secured nor fairly brought on record by the investigating agency, despite an application having been moved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking preservation of such footage. That the withholding or non-collection of the best available electronic evidence, according to him, itself betrays the infirmity of the prosecution case.
That the Petition also refers to his judicial remand, the bail proceedings and the prosecution report filed during the remand /bail stage, and asserts that the material placed by the investigating agency is replete with embellishments and is reflective of an attempt to build an aggravated criminal narrative upon a dispute that is essentially civil in nature. That the continuance of the impugned FIR, would therefore amount to permitting the criminal law to be weaponized for collateral purposes, resulting in grave prejudice to his liberty, reputation and legal rights. That he invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS on the well-settled principle that where the criminal process is manifestly attended with mala fides, where the allegations are inherently improbable, where the foundational facts do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, and where the criminal proceeding is plainly a device to settle private scores arising out of a civil dispute, the Court is duty bound to interdict such abuse of process at the threshold. He contended that the present case, as pleaded, falls squarely within the parameters recognized in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the subsequent line of authorities on quashment jurisdiction.
5. Perused the interim application supported with an affidavit.
6. It has been averred in the application that applicant/petitioner has got a strong prima facie case made out in his favor who is sure to succeed at the proceedings of the petition. That the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss in case he is not protected at this initial stage.
7. Also perused the main petition and the copies of documents enclosed with the same as annexures thereto.
8. List on 27th April, 2026.
9. In the meantime, subject to any vacation/modification upon the consideration of objections/arguments of the other side and till next date of hearing, the respondent No. 1 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station Rajbagh Srinagar is directed that, while being at liberty to proceed with the investigation in the impugned case FIR No. 1/2026 dated 08.01.2026 registered with his Police Station, he shall however await the orders of this Court regarding the presentation of final report/challan in terms of Section 193 BNSS, if any, contemplated/warranted in the backdrop of the investigation.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.03.2026 Shahid Manzoor