Nominal Index:Kishore Kumar Vs Ishar Das 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250Narayan Sharma @ Shuna through Mrs. Lata Sharma (Mother) Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 251Showkat Ahmad Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 252Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254Sheikh Owais Tariq Vs Satvir Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL)...
Nominal Index:
Kishore Kumar Vs Ishar Das 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Narayan Sharma @ Shuna through Mrs. Lata Sharma (Mother) Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
Showkat Ahmad Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
Sheikh Owais Tariq Vs Satvir Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
Bharat Bhushan Jolly and ors Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
Rahees Hayat alias Ayaz Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
State through P/S Pulwama Vs Nazir Ahmad Rather 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
Aqib Ahmad Renzu Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
Dr Tanveer Hussain Khan & Ors Vs Andleeba Rehman & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
Talib Hussain @ Javied Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
Ashraf Ali @ Shiffu Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan VS UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
Sh. Vijay Sharma Vs U.T of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
Shagufta Bano V/S UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
Zaffar Abbas Din Vs Nasir Hamid Khan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
Satpal Sharma Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
Anju Khan Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
Kishan Tukaram Gavade Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
Dr. Ashiq Hussain Factoo Vs State of J&K & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
Himashu Gupta Vs Sohani Ram 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: Kishore Kumar Vs Ishar Das
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a suit cannot be dismissed merely due to the improper or incorrect description of immovable property, except in cases involving mortgage suits.
A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasized that this requirement is not mandatory in other suits, thereby offering crucial clarity on the interpretation of this provision.
Case Title: Narayan Sharma @ Shuna through Mrs. Lata Sharma (Mother) Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
Upholding the validity of a preventive detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that preventive detention can be ordered irrespective of ongoing or concluded criminal proceedings.
The court emphasized that such detention may occur “before, during, or after prosecution, with or without prosecution, and even after discharge or acquittal,” making it clear that preventive detention serves a distinct purpose from punitive measures in criminal law.
Case Title: Showkat Ahmad Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the mere fact that a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage does not automatically invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with the presumption of suicide abetment by a husband or relative of a married woman.
Case Title: Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
In a notable ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that the application of the Eighth Exception to Section 499 (Defamation) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) (pari materia to Sec 499 of IPC) involves the determination of factual issues that cannot be assessed at the threshold stage by the trial court or in a petition seeking quashing.
Case Title: Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the embargo under the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail in cases punishable by death or life imprisonment cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Granting bail to one Raman Kumar, the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over 13 years without his trial being concluded a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,
“While considering the bar for grant of bail in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, a proper balance is required to be maintained to ensure that the right of the accused to Speedy Trial is not violated”.
Case Title: Sheikh Owais Tariq Vs Satvir Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is maintainable even if a cheque is dishonoured with the reason 'Account Frozen'.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, hearing the matter, examined whether the complaint for dishonour of a cheque on the ground of 'Account Frozen' is maintainable under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Jolly and ors Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the stringent tests regarding the sufficiency of proof, which are usually applied at the final stage of a case, are not applicable during the framing of charges or discharge of an accused.
Case Title: Rahees Hayat alias Ayaz Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a habeas corpus writ petition cannot be dismissed solely because the period of preventive detention has expired during the pendency of the case. The court emphasized that allowing the petition to lapse on this ground would undermine the rule of law and suggest that personal liberty is restored merely by the passage of time, rather than through enforcing rights.
Case Title: State through P/S Pulwama Vs Nazir Ahmad Rather
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while upholding the acquittal of three individuals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985 ruled that the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act are rebuttable, not absolute.
The court emphasised that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case against the accused before the burden shifts to the defense.
Case Title: Aqib Ahmad Renzu Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention order issued against former Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) Corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu.
The court held that the mere fact that Renzu had been granted bail in multiple criminal cases did not justify his detention under preventive law. The court further emphasized that preventive detention laws cannot be used as a substitute for handling cases under regular criminal law.
Case Title: Dr Tanveer Hussain Khan & Ors Vs Andleeba Rehman & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) are not strictly criminal in nature. Consequently, the bar preventing Magistrates from revoking or cancelling their own orders is not applicable in these cases, it added.
Case Title: Talib Hussain @ Javied Vs UT of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention of Talib Hussain, Bureau Chief of Zee News Urdu, remarking that the "casualness and callousness" shown by the authorities in passing mechanical detention orders mocked the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ashraf Ali @ Shiffu Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court strongly criticised the District Magistrate of Udhampur for issuing an unlawful preventive detention order under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The court found the detention order to be arbitrary and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan VS UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the petition has the trappings of a criminal case.
Case Title: Sh. Vijay Sharma Vs U.T of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it has no mechanism to determine whether the threat perception of individuals or political figures has been properly assessed, emphasizing that such evaluations are strictly within the jurisdiction of security agencies.
Case Title: Shagufta Bano V/S UT of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the law does not allow any discrimination between foreign nationals and Indian nationals regarding the granting of bail, emphasizing that bail must be considered based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and conditions may be imposed to ensure the accused is available for trial, but bail cannot be denied simply because the accused is a foreign national.
Case Title: Zaffar Abbas Din Vs Nasir Hamid Khan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that despite the de-operationalization of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957, and the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, the court retains both ordinary original civil jurisdiction and extraordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Case Title: Satpal Sharma Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court remarked that "a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." The court imposed a hefty cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for deliberately suppressing material facts in an attempt to obtain interim relief.
Case Title: Anju Khan Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
Quashing the preventive detention of 25-year-old Anjun Khan, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court denounced the misuse of the Public Safety Act (PSA) as a means to bypass ordinary criminal law. The court has emphasised that the inability of the State's police machinery to resort to normal legal procedures could not justify invoking the draconian PSA.
Case Title: Kishan Tukaram Gavade Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
Upholding the dismissal of a BSF constable for overstaying his leave by nearly two years the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reinforced the principle that, unless the punishment shocks the court's conscience, the proportionality of punishment should not be interfered with.
Case Title: Dr. Ashiq Hussain Factoo Vs State of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
Dismissing the remission plea of Kashmiri separatist and Hizbul Mujahideen militant, Ashiq Hussain Factoo, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that heinous crimes like terrorism are a class apart and warrant a stricter approach.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Dhar and M.A. Chowdhary, declared that the reformative theory of punishment must yield in cases involving terrorist crimes, particularly in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where militancy has been rampant for over three decades.
Proceedings U/S 145 CrPC Not A Substitute For Recovering Possession Of Property: J&K High Court
Case Title: Himashu Gupta Vs Sohani Ram
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be used as a means to recover possession of a property, when the dispute concerns the title of the property.