Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: 25 September - 1 October, 2023

Nominal Index:

Dilshad Sheikh & Ors vs Sabha Sheikh 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 251

Bashir-Ud-Din Vs UT Of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 252

Hotel Ashai Srinagar & Ors. Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 253

Ama Teli V/s Manzoor Ahmad Bhat and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 254

Sheikh Abdul Majeed Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 255

Judgments/Orders:

FIR Can Be Registered On Complaint Received Via WhatsApp: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Dilshad Sheikh & Ors vs Sabha Sheikh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 251

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court r held that registration of complaints via WhatsApp, coupled with acknowledgement by relevant authorities, is substantial compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC- provisions pertaining to registration of FIRs.

History Sheets Only To Be Opened If Authority Reasonably Convinced Of Habitual Offending: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Bashir-Ud-Din Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 252

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that law enforcement shall strictly adhere to established parameters in Police Rules while opening or retaining history sheets. It added that a history sheet can be opened only on the subjective satisfaction of the authority that the person is a habitual offender.

Justice M A Chowdhary added that authorities must exercise this discretion based on reason and justice, not personal opinion or whims and their actions should adhere to the law and established procedures, avoiding arbitrary, vague, or fanciful decisions.

Jurisdiction U/Art 226 Not Confined To Administrative, Executive Actions Of State, Also Extends To Promissory Estoppel: J&K High Court

Case Title: Hotel Ashai Srinagar & Ors. Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 253

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the High Court's authority under Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to scrutinizing the administrative and executive decisions of the government but also applies to the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to ensure that the government abides by its promises.

“The jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not restricted only to the review of the administrative actions and executive decisions of the State but also extends to the applicability of the "doctrine of promissory estoppels" of which the whole object is to see that the Government sticks to its promise and abides by it”.

J&K Agrarian Reforms Act | Landlord-Tenant Relationship To Be Established Between Parties To Avail Ownership Rights U/S 4, 8 : High Court

Case Title: Ama Teli V/s Manzoor Ahmad Bhat and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 254

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in order to get the benefit of Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 it has to be established that there was a relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties and a tenant who was in possession of the land was paying rent to the landlord.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasized that the Act aimed to extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship and provided a specific process for tenants to benefit from it. This included attestation of mutations under sections 4 and 8, based on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Can Be Invoked Against Persons Discharging Public Duty, Not Only Public Servants: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sheikh Abdul Majeed Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 255

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a broad interpretation of the term "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act is essential to curb the growing menace of corruption in the society imparting public duty.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal also clarified that it would be inappropriate to limit the definition by an interpretation which would be against the spirit of the statute.

“In furtherance of the fight against corruption, a broad interpretation to the provisions of this statute is required to be given and the arms of this Act are required to be extended to the maximum. The offences under the P.C.Act can be invoked not only against a public servant but also against a person, who by virtue of his office has been discharging 'public duty'”.