Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 3 - February 10, 2025

Rajinder Singh Vs Abdul Aziz 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs Farman Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Rathika Pruthi vs Contonment Board (Badami bagh) thr. Chief Executive Officer 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Tarun Bahl vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Mohammad Amin Sheikh & Khalida Begum vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Riyaz Ahmad Azad Alias Azad vs State of J&K &Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Dalip Thusu and anr vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

National Insurance Company Limited vs Gulshana Begum & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Mohammad Ishaq Dar & Anr.vs Usman Syed Shah & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Shahid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Aijaz Hussain Rather Vs Jeelani Ahmad Dar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Judgments/Orders:

Limitation Laws Not Meant To Destroy Rights But To Prevent Delay, Every Legal Remedy Must Be Kept Alive Within Legislatively Fixed Period: J&K HC

Case Title: Rajinder Singh Vs Abdul Aziz

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Reaffirming that the rules of limitation exist not to extinguish legal rights but to ensure timely recourse to justice the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging an order condoning a delay of over six years in filing a review petition.

In dismissing the appeal Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohammad Yousuf Wani underscored that every legal remedy must be kept alive within a legislatively fixed period, but a liberal approach may be warranted if genuine reasons for the delay exist.

Victim's Solitary Evidence In Sexual Offences Not Sufficient For Conviction If Marred With Inconsistencies: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

While setting aside the conviction order passed by the trial court in a rape and abduction case, the Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the fact that Prosecutrix was aware of the place where she was kept after abduction and raped but never identified that place during the investigation assumes significance as material contradiction.

Surprising That Probe In NDPS Cases Is Being Entrusted To Incompetent Officers, Casual Approach Undermines Public Faith In Criminal Justice: J&K HC

Case title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs Farman Ali

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

While upholding the acquittal order passed by the trial court for possessing contraband in commercial quantity, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the Non-compliance with mandatory provisions, such as proper sampling, immediate reporting and informing the accused of arrest grounds, renders the prosecution's case defective.

Trial Court Should Avoid Giving Observations On Merits Of Case At Stage Of Interim Application: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Case title: Rathika Pruthi vs Contonment Board (Badami bagh) thr. Chief Executive Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

While setting aside an order passed by the trial court, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir observed that by making observations on the merits of the suit, the trial court had virtually dismissed the suit under the guise of dismissing the application for interim relief, leaving nothing in the suit for determination.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani set aside the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the appellant. The court also observed that merely stating that concealment was of a material fact would not absolve the trial court of its duty the law puts on it.

Police Resorted To Public Safety Act For 'Perverted Detention', To Outmanoeuvre Courts: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

Case-title: Tarun Bahl vs UT of J&K, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

While quashing the detention order, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and the District Magistrate, Jammu had resorted to a dubious exercise of authority and jurisdiction at their respective ends to 'pounce upon' the personal liberty of the petitioner by subjecting him to preventive detention.

[S.25 UAPA] Mere Delay In Informing Authorities About Seizure Of Vehicle Allegedly Used In Terrorism Not Fatal To Investigation: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh & Khalida Begum vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

While upholding the order passed by the Trial Court for the seizure of a vehicle allegedly used in terrorism, the J&K High Court observed that the procedural timeline given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment within 48 hours is not mandatory under Section 25 of the UAPA.

It was also observed that if the Designated Authority fails to make its order within 60 days of confirming or revoking the seizure, the delay cannot be a reason to overturn the order of seizure.

Assertion Of Accused Being Habitual Offender Not Sufficient For Preventive Detention, Must Establish Continuous Commission Of Offences: J&K High Court

Case Title: Riyaz Ahmad Azad Alias Azad vs State of J&K &Ors. 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

While setting aside a detention order, the J&K High Court held that preventive detention cannot be a punitive measure on the apprehension that the detenu is going to go scot-free in pending trials due to lack of support to the prosecution case.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Kaul said that when the thread of connectivity between the last incident and the order of preventive detention is lost, the same cannot be restored by the mere assertion of the petitioner being a habitual offender as made in the grounds for detention in the absence of material to substantiate the propensity to commit a crime.

Mere Violation Of Departmental Norms Without Dishonest Intention To Obtain Pecuniary Advantage Not Criminal Misconduct: J&K High Court

Case Title: Dalip Thusu and anr vs Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

While quashing the order of framing charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the J&K High Court observed that there was no whisper in the chargesheet and no material on record annexed to the chargesheet to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had obtained any pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing, either for themselves or for any other person, even though the same had caused loss to the State Exchequer.

[MACT] Tribunal Must Examine Question Of Deceased Being Gratuitous Passenger Before Attaching Liability On Insurance Company: J&K High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Gulshana Begum & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

While remanding a case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the J&K High Court said that in the present accident case, the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger (travelling without paying) and not the labourer of the offending truck owner on the date of the accident was not established for the purpose of compensation.

The court said that the same could have been established by examining the officials of the Construction Company-HCC, where the deceased was alleged to be working on a monthly remuneration or, in the alternative, the driver or owner of the offending vehicle should have been examined by the Tribunal, which it failed to do.

Courts Must Not Deny Party's Statutory Remedies As A Matter Of Policy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Ishaq Dar & Anr.vs Usman Syed Shah & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

While dismissing an appeal with cost and upholding the trial court order granting a recall Application, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that when there is a statutory remedy available to a litigant, there is no dispute about a court granting liberty to avail such remedy as it remains open to the party to work out his remedies under the law.

Preventive Detention Can Be Ordered Regardless Of Prosecution, In Anticipation Of Discharge Or Acquittal: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shahid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to quash the detention order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, observing that preventive detention does not overlap with the prosecution (in regular courts) even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may have been launched.

The court clarified that "An order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution, with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution."

Chief Judicial Magistrate Has Jurisdiction Over Entire District, Can Take Cognizance Under NI Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Aijaz Hussain Rather Vs Jeelani Ahmad Dar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Clarifying that a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) has jurisdiction over the entire district the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the CJM can take cognizance of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), even if the local limits of a Judicial Magistrate are involved.

In dismissing a plea assailing the issuance of process by a CJM in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“It has been contended that as per Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is only the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection or where the cheque is presented for payment by the payee which has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, it is the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Magam, which has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and not the CJM, Budgam. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely frivolous”