Availability Of Civil Remedy Not Grounds To Quash Criminal Proceedings: J&K High Court Holds In Enso Tower Dispute

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that the mere existence of a civil or commercial dispute does not bar criminal prosecution, if the allegations in a complaint disclose the commission of a criminal offense. Noting that same facts might result in both civil and criminal remedies, the bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar, on 26th December, 2025, rejected to quash a 2020 theft FIR arising from a landlord-tenant dispute at Enso Tower. Zaffar Abbas Din, a landlord, had approached the High Court to quash two FIRs registered at the Anantnag Police Station. In the first, FIR No. 78/2020, a tenant (Respondent No. 3) claimed that despite a High Court status quo order, the Zaafar had illegally entered the demised premises at "Enso Tower" during 2020 lockdown and removed things worth crores. In the second FIR No. 133/2023, it was claimed that the Zaffar had conspired with municipal authorities to forge a notice in order to deceive an Arbitral Tribunal by adding the tenant's name after the fact to justify the removal of the goods. The central issue was whether criminal procedures can continue alongside arbitration and civil remedies, as well as whether the second FIR claiming forgery, cheating, and use of fraudulent documents revealed any cognizable offense warranting police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Zaffar argued that the FIRs were solely an attempt to paint a purely civil issue with a "criminal color." He argued that the expired commodities had been taken by municipal authorities due to hygienic concerns during the pandemic and that an arbitral award had already been passed in the case. On the other hand, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, represented by its counsels argued that Zaffar had committed theft and fraud in order to induce illegal dispossession, as well as flagrantly violated the status quo order. According to the state's status report, Zaffar was found guilty of the offenses in the initial FIR. The Court noted that a complaint can only be quashed if the allegations taken at face value, do not constitute any offense or if the proceeding is a blatant abuse of process, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Court ruled that "the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings". It reaffirmed that whether the accusations reveal a criminal offense is the primary criteria. In reference to the second FIR, the High Court took a contrary view, holding that the municipal notice dated 26.03.2020 did not amount to a “false document”, procured by deception under Section 464 IPC. It further observed that even if false evidence was assumed to have been produced before the Arbitral Tribunal, the offence under Section 192 IPC was non-cognizable, and therefore the Magistrate “could not have issued a direction to register the FIR”, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The High Court clarifying that an Arbitral Tribunal “has not been declared as a 'court'”, held that the bar under Section 195 CrPC does not apply to arbitral proceedings. It pronounced that “the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Cr. P. C are not attracted to an offence of giving false evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal”, as arbitration does not fall within the statutory definition of a court. Rejecting to quash FIR No.78/2020, the Court held that “it is not a case where the transaction underlying the impugned FIR gives rise only to civil claims but it is a case where it gives rise to both civil claim as well as criminal offences. It is, therefore, not open to this Court to quash the impugned FIR”. Noting that the charges needed to be investigated and the Zaffar's involvement was evident from the case log, the court partly allowed the complaint by quashing the FIR No. 133/2023 and rejecting to quash the FIR No. 78/2020. Consequently, the Court directed the legal investigation procedures to continue. Case Title: Zaffar Abbas Din vs. UT of J&K & Ors. Case No: CRM(M) No. 90/2024 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar Date of Decision: December 26, 2025 Appearances: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz and Mr. Wahid (for Petitioner); Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway (GA for Respondent No 1 & Respondent No 2); Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Gani (Senior Advocate) with Ms. Gousia (for Respondent No 3). Click Here To Read/Download Order

Availability Of Civil Remedy Not Grounds To Quash Criminal Proceedings: J&K High Court Holds In Enso Tower Dispute

Shivani PS

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Availability Of Civil Remedy Not Grounds To Quash Criminal Proceedings: J&K High Court Holds In Enso Tower Dispute

Shivani PS

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers