Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: 8 July - 14 July, 2024
Nominal Index:Mehraj ud din Andrabi Vs Zia Darakshan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 180Yawar Ahmad Malik Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 181Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182MAHANT GANESH DASS JI V/s STATE OF JK AND ANOTHER (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 183Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184Judgments/Orders:Dismissal Of Complaint...
Nominal Index:
Mehraj ud din Andrabi Vs Zia Darakshan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
Yawar Ahmad Malik Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
MAHANT GANESH DASS JI V/s STATE OF JK AND ANOTHER (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 183
Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: Mehraj ud din Andrabi Vs Zia Darakshan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh asserted that a Magistrate cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to restore a complaint once dismissed due to the complainant's non-appearance.
A bench comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul has declared that such dismissals are final orders, emphasizing the absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that confers this power on the Trial Court.
Case Title: Yawar Ahmad Malik Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that using "Security of State" as a ground for detaining a person in a Union Territory is a valid exercise of the detaining authority's power.
Dismissing an appeal against a single bench judgment that dismissed a habeas corpus plea a bench comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi explained,
“There is no doubt that the definition of State as contained in [Section 3 (58) of General Clauses Act, 1897] includes Union Territory. The term, “all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India” comprises States and Union Territories”.
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife merely by claiming to have divorced her.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the husband must not only prove the pronouncement of Talaak or the execution of a divorce deed but must also demonstrate that sincere efforts were made by both parties' representatives to reconcile their disputes. Failure of such efforts, without any fault of the husband, must be convincingly established.
Case Title: MAHANT GANESH DASS JI V/s STATE OF JK AND ANOTHER (REVENUE DEPARTMENT)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 183
Aiming to ensure an effective and peaceful management of Shri Raghu Nath Mandir and Nagbal Gautam Nag Temple in Anantnag, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (District Magistrate) of Anantnag to assume control over the management of these temples and their properties.
The directions to this effect were passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M.A. Chowdhary, while addressing conflicting claims of management of these temples.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court cautioned that an FIR and the consequent charge-report resulting from an investigation cannot be quashed routinely under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the parties have settled their differences.
Raising an alarm of watchfulness Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani reasoned,
“In case the FIRs and the criminal cases culminating from the investigations are allowed to be quashed at the wish of the complainants and/or accused, the criminal justice system is likely to become a causality and the society at large will have to bear the consequences”.