Kumar Avinav Vs State of J&K. 2023 LiveLaw 14

Rukhsana Jabeen Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Sham Lal vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Shahid Hameed Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Rahul Kumar & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

P N Sharma Vs Union Of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Asif Iqbal Naik Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Khalid Nazir Wagay Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Neeraj Shastri and another Vs State of J&K and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Tawqeer Ahmad Wani Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

M/s Sundaram Surgicals Vs Drug Inspector Doda 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

XXX(Minor) Through Her Father Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

Dr Jahangir Iqbal Tantray Vs Farmeeda Akhter 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Ms Syeda Nazir Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Shabir Ahmed Khan V/s State of J&K & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ghulam Qadir & anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

Judgements/Orders:

CBI Was Sufficiently Empowered To Investigate Cases In Erstwhile State of J&K In Terms Of General Consent: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Kumar Avinav Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 14

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh ruled that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enjoyed the requisite jurisdiction to investigate offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of erstwhile State of J&K in terms of the general consent given on May 7, 1958 and December 8, 1963 by the government

Permitting Executive To Review Or Sit Over Court's Decisions Would Tantamount To Interference With Judicial Functions: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Rukhsana Jabeen Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the executive is under obligation to obey judicial orders and permitting the executive to review, revise or sit over the decisions of the Court by issuing executive orders or instructions would tantamount to interference with the exercise of judicial functions.

Article 226 Petition Can Be Moved Even When Fundamental Right Is Threatened, Provided Apprehension Is Well Founded: JKL High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a petition under Article 226 can be entertained even when the fundamental right of a citizen is threatened and one need not await the actual prejudice or adverse effects for filing the same, provided his apprehension is well founded.

Can't Let Them Suffer "Rough Side Of Life": JKL High Court Grants Bail To Father Of Two Minors Booked For Murder Of Their Mother

Case Title: Sham Lal vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a man, accused of killing his wife, to take care of their two minor daughters.

Appreciating the sensitivity of the situation Justice Rahul Bharti said that it could ignore the hard fact that the two minor daughters while on the one hand had come to suffer loss of their mother for all times to come and on the other hand are suffering the absence of their father who by virtue of his detainment, is not to be assumed to be able to attend to their welfare and well being in terms of needs of their daily life.

[JKPSC Recruitment] Qualification In 'Relevant Subject' Has Wider Scope Of Eligibility Than Qualification In 'Subject Concerned': High Court

Case Title: Shahid Hameed Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that in matters of recruitment, the phrase 'qualification in relevant subject' has wider implications than the phrase 'qualification in subject concerned'.

Finding so, it permitted a post graduate degree holder in 'Applied Geology' to apply for the vacant position of 'Geology' Assistant Professor, adding that the recruitment notification issued by the J&K Public Service Commission in this case only prescribed a candidate to possess degree in 'relevant subject' and not the particular 'subject concerned'.

Pending Inquest Proceedings U/S 174 CrPC No Bar For Magistrate To Order Registration Of FIR: JKL High Court

Case Title: Rahul Kumar & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a case can be registered for investigation by lodging of FIR, on receipt of information about commission of cognizable offence without waiting for a conclusion of inquest proceedings initiated under section 174 CrPC.

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

"Merely because the inquest proceedings were pending before the police at the time when the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate (to register FIR) would not make the said order unsustainable in law".

24 Years After Forced Eviction By MoD's Badami Bagh Cantonment Board In Kashmir, High Court Awards 10 Lakh Compensation To Allottee

Case Title: P N Sharma Vs Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court awarded Rs 10 Lakh compensation to a person, who was evicted from his shop-cum-residential premise in 1998 by Ministry Of Defence's Badamibagh Cantonment Board without following the due course of law as prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971

The compensation came to be granted by Justice Sanjay Dhar while disposing of a plea in terms of which the petitioner was seeking a declaration that his eviction from the shop-cum-residential premises at Saddar Bazar, Badami Bagh Cantonment, Srinagar is illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.

No Fetters Can Be Placed On Press Freedom By Registering FIRs Against Journalists Who Report On Information Given By Identifiable Source: JKL High Court

Case Title: Asif Iqbal Naik Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Quashing an FIR against a journalist, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that no fetters can be placed on the freedom of press by registering the FIR against journalists, who perform their professional duty by publishing news items on the basis of information obtained by them from an identifiable source.

"However, they are also expected to report the coverage with responsibility without any jingoism and divisive publication or telecast," Justice MA Chowdhary said.

[PIT-NDPS Act] Threat To Public Health Ground For Detention If Authority Satisfied That Detenu Indulged In Illicit Drug Trafficking: JKL High Court

Case Title: Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because the detaining Authority among other grounds has also observed that the activities of the detenu pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act illegal.

Cross FIRs Permissible In Case Of Two Different Versions Of Parties With Regard To Same Occurrence: JKL High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that there cannot be two FIRs with regard to the same occurrence but in cases of two different versions on part of rival parties with regard to the same occurrence, registration of cross FIRs is permissible.

"It cannot be said that in the instant case, the registration of FIR on the application of the petitioner would amount to registration of second FIR regarding same offence. Rather this Court is of the considered view that the same would be a cross FIR and the registration of the same, is not impermissible under law", the bench underscored.

Accused Can't Choose Place Of Prosecution By Taking Refuge Of Unfounded Security Apprehensions: JKL High Court

Case Title: Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition filed by social activist Prof. SK Bhalla seeking transfer of a defamation complaint, filed against him by a journalist in Doda, to Jammu.

The bench of Justice M A Chowdhary said that an accused cannot be allowed to have a place of his choice to be prosecuted by taking refuge of unfounded personal security apprehensions.

'Pseudo Police Report' Filed U/S 173 CrPC Cannot Defeat Right Of Accused To Default Bail: JKL High Court

Case Title: Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a 'pseudo police report' under section 173 CrPC, even if filed within time frame of section 167 CrPC, cannot be given legal sanctity to betray the statutory/default bail right of an accused in a case.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

"This right, upon getting accrued, is given straight away on asking of the entitled accused notwithstanding the purported gravity of the accusation of offence/s against the accused under pre-trial custody".

Multiple Criminal Proceedings By Complainant Over Same Allegations Violate Accused's Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 Constitution: JKL High Court

Case Title: Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently observed that filing of multiple criminal proceedings against the same accused by an informant for the same alleged offence is prohibited in law.

"Getting an accused entangled in multiple criminal proceedings in same alleged offence would be an abuse of process of law, which cannot stand the scrutiny of the Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution," a bench comprising Justices Javed Iqbal Wani observed relying on Apex Court's decision in Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs State of Uttar Pradesh".

[S.7 Armed Forces Special Powers Act] Sanction To Prosecute Required If Action, No Matter How Illegal, Is In Discharge Of Duty: JKL High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that to prosecute an Armed Forces personnel for an alleged illegal act committed in connected with the discharge of official duty, sanction to prosecute under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act is required, no matter how illegal the act may be.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"if an act is connected with the discharge of official duty of an accused, the said act is certainly under the colour of his duty, no matter how illegal the act may be, but if the offence is committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of police officer/official, there is no requirement of previous sanction. In short, in order to attract the provisions of Section 7 of AFSP Act, it has to be shown that there is a reasonable connection between the act and performance of duty in execution of powers under the Act."

Subsequent Detention Order Not Mentioning Detenu's Previous Detention On Same Grounds And Materials Not Sustainable: JKL High Court

Case Title: Khalid Nazir Wagay Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Quashing a detention order the Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently held that using the same grounds and material for passing a subsequent detention order without actually mentioning that the detenue had already been detained on the basis of this very material, not only amounts to an illegality but also shows lack of application of mind on part of the detaining authority.

S.66 Food Safety & Standards Act | Criminal Prosecution Cannot Proceed Against Partners Without Arraigning Firm As Accused: JKL High Court

Case Title: Neeraj Shastri and another Vs State of J&K and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the existence of Section 66 in the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is a clear pointer to the fact that the criminal prosecution cannot proceed against partners without arraigning the firm as an accused.

Observing that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law the court went on to clarify that Section 66 of the said Act prescribes for vicarious liability and therefore when an offence has been committed by a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.

Detaining Authority Has Exclusive Responsibility To Formulate Grounds Of Detention, Investigating Agency Can Only Give Inputs: JKL High Court

Case Title: Tawqeer Ahmad Wani Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Quashing a Preventive detention order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the Investigating agency has no role in the formulation of the grounds of detention of a detenue as the same is a prerogative of the detaining authority.

A bench comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,

"Detaining authority may get inputs from different agencies, including Superintendent of Police concerned, but responsibility to formulate grounds of detention exclusively rests with detaining authority".

No Prosecution Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Against A "Purported Manufacturer"; Must Ascertain Identity Of Actual Manufacturer: JKL High Court

Case Title: M/s Sundaram Surgicals Vs Drug Inspector Doda.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the prosecution for commission of offence under section 18 (a) (i), read with section 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 Act cannot be launched against a purported manufacturer of whom the subject drug is truly not a product.

"It is only the dealer, retailer and actual manufacturer, who can be prosecuted for sale, stock or exhibition of spurious drug," Justice Sanjay Dhar observed while hearing a plea challenging the complaint filed against the Petitioner by Drugs Inspector, Doda.

J&K&L High Court Allows Minor Rape Victim To Undergo Medical Termination Of 19-Week Pregnancy After Her Father Gives 'High Risk Consent'

Case Title: XXX(Minor) Through Her Father Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a minor rape victim to undergo medical termination of 19-week pregnancy after her father gave "extra high risk consent" as was demanded by the medical board.

The victim's father had approached the court seeking termination of pregnancy of the minor. In the rape case, an FIR was registered at a police station in north Kashmir on February 14.

O VII R 10 CPC | Can't Dismiss Suit At Threshold If Question Of Jurisdiction Is Question Of Fact Or Mixed Question Of Fact And Law: JKL High Court

Case Title: Dr Jahangir Iqbal Tantray Vs Farmeeda Akhter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the obligation to dismiss a suit at the threshold or return a plaint for want of jurisdiction arises only when it is a pure issue of law. The issue of jurisdiction, depending on question of fact or mixed question of law and fact, must be decided on merits, it clarified.

Abraded Lesions On Hand After Tattoo Removal Does Not Make Candidate Unfit For CAPF Unless It Has Potential To Interfere With Working: JKL High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which do not have any potentiality to interfere with the working of a Constable, cannot be made ground to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF.

[Anganwadi Workers] Acquisition Of Higher Qualification At A Later Date Not Determinative For Fixing Seniority: JKL High Court

Case Title: Ms Syeda Nazir Vs State of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Govt of J&K to fix the seniority of Anganwadi workers from their initial engagement reiterating that the acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification is the requisite qualification for the higher post, will not be determinative for fixing the seniority.

"However for the purpose of computing the experience with a particular qualification, the relevant date would be when the relevant qualification has been acquired. Previous experience without particular qualification will have to be ignored," it clarified.

Proceedings Under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act Not Bar To Initiating Criminal Action, Lodging FIR U/S 498A IPC: JKL High Court

Case Title: Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because proceedings have been initiated by a wife against her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), no bar can be construed against lodging a first information report (FIR) for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Attacks On Politicians Who Do Not Subscribe To Separatists Ideology Still Prevalent In Kashmir Valley: High Court

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Khan V/s State of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Observing that the incidents of attacks on main-stream politicians and the people who do not subscribe to the separatists ideology are still taking place in Kashmir Valley, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed an application filed by former health minister Shabir Ahmed Khan seeking transfer of criminal proceedings against him from a court in Srinagar to a Jammu court.

JKL High Court Raps Medical Officer For Issuing Disability Certificates To Motor Accident Victims For 'Extraneous Considerations', Orders Inquiry

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ghulam Qadir & anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court censured a medical Officer for conducting grave professional misconduct by issuing number of Permanent Disability Certificates, though being not competent to issue such certificates, and help beneficiaries to get hefty amount of compensation from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals from time to time without there being any such disability, thereby causing wrongful loss to the insurance companies.