Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 24 - June 30, 2024

State Vs Raj Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170

Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171

NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

Judgments/Orders:

Prosecution Must Prove Continuous Harassment And Proximate Act For Securing Conviction Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: State Vs Raj Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that for a conviction on charges of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish not just continuous harassment but also a clear and proximate act by the accused that demonstrably pushed the victim to take their own life.

Courts Must Examine Circumstances Beyond Allegations In FIR In Potentially Vexatious Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.

A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated that courts have a duty to examine the “attending circumstances” beyond the allegations in the FIR, especially when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings arising from personal disputes.

Specific Allegations Against Husband's Relatives Essential To Warrant Their Prosecution For Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: J&K High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

Emphasising that relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC based on general and vague allegations, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the necessity for specific allegations to warrant their prosecution.

[Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.

Once Complainant's Statement Is Recorded U/S 200 CrPC, Magistrate Can't Pass Directions To Register FIR U/S 156(3): J&K High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170

Reinforcing the distinction between a magistrate's powers under Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3) (pre-cognizance) and 200 (cognizance) when handling complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that recording a complainant's statement under Section 200 prohibits issuing an FIR order under Section 156(3).

[S.33 Insecticides Act] All Those Responsible For Conduct Of Business Liable When Company Commits Offense Under Insecticides Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.

Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Instances Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offense Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Quashing an FIR filed against four brothers for allegedly abetting the suicide of their deceased sibling the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere omnibus allegations of harassment without specific instances wouldn't be sufficient to attract culpability under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide).

Denial Of Leave To Attend To Ailing Mother No Grounds To Skip Duty: J&K High Court Upholds Withholding Of CRPF Personnel's Salary For Unauthorised Absence

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the withholding of salary of a CRPF personnel for unauthorized absence from duty, observing that denial of leave to attend an ailing mother cannot be a ground to leave duty without permission.

Landowner Seeking Enhanced Compensation Must Prove Market Value Of Land Acquired Is Different From The One Assessed By Collector: J&K High Court

Case Title: ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently clarified that the burden to prove that the market value of acquired land is different from the value assessed by the Collector rests on the landowners seeking enhanced compensation.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar maintained that so long as the land owner/ owners fail to discharge the burden cast on them, there is no question of the Reference court granting any enhancement.