logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 JKHC 174 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Case No : CRM.(M). No. 988 of 2026 & CrlM. No. 1812 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI
Parties : Shazia Kouser & Another Versus UT of J&K & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Irfan Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------.
Date of Judgment : 14-09-2026
Head Note :-
 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS), 2023 - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. Irfan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Whether the Police Station, Manjakote ought to have exercised circumspection and restraint in the matter of registering an FIR No. 0072 dated 18.08.2026 at the instance of the respondent No. 3- Guftar Ahmed for alleged commission of offences under sections 126(2), 88, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is a question which gets posed through the medium of the present petition filed by two petitioners thereby invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS), 2023 seeking quashment of said FIR.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is wife of the respondent No. 3.

4. The respondent No. 3 has ventured to lodge the FIR by visiting the Police Station, Manjakote on 18.08.2026 itself and getting the FIR No. 0072/2026 registered on the same very date meaning thereby there was no intervening time availed by the SHO Police Station, Manjakote to examine the nature of the allegations and accusations being made by the respondent No. 3 from his end alleging that his wife i.e., the petitioner No. 1 has terminated 4-5 months of pregnancy, which was conceived from him, without his consent and, thus, indulged in the alleged commission of offences, in particular offence under sections 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

5. The petitioner No. 2 who is a sister of the petitioner No. 1 has been arrayed as an abettor.

6. The tone and tenor of the contents of the FIR on the face of it do not inspire confidence about the narrative being set up by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner No. 1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases titled “Neethu A.M. Vs State of Kerala” and “A (Mother of X) Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.”.

8. Prima facie case made out.

9. Issue notice to the respondents in the main petition as well as in CrlM No. 1812/2026.

10. Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel to Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

11. Notice shall now go to the respondent No. 3 only who shall be served through the SHO Police Station, Manjakote for which notice be sent by the Registrar Judicial, Jammu for the needful purpose. Process upon service be returned by or before next date of hearing.

12. List on 23.10.2026.

13. In the meantime, investigation in the FIR No. 0072 dated 18.08.2026 shall remain stayed.

14. This order is, however, subject to objections from other side.
 
  CDJLawJournal