Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup April 7 - April 13, 2025

Aditya Malhotra vs Dharminder Singh 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 138

HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140

Mumtaz Ahmed th. Nisar Ahmed Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 141

Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Susheel Kumar Rana and others Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

Anil Gupta and another vs Union Territory of J&K and another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

ABDUL RAHEEM BHAT (Senior Citizen) vs BEAUTY JAN AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

Hakim Nazir Ahmad Vs Commissioner SMC 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

Abdul Hamid vs UT OF J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

Judgments/Orders:

Complainant Does Not Acquiesce To Jurisdiction Under NI Act By Merely Participating In Proceedings Or Negotiating A Settlement: J&K High Court

Case Title: Aditya Malhotra vs Dharminder Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 138

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that merely because the complainant participated in the proceedings by giving evidence on affidavit before the trial magistrate not having the jurisdiction to try the case does not mean he has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court.

Compulsory Retirement Valid For Leaving Battalion Without Informing About New Address, Employer Cannot Launch 'Manhunt' For Employee: J&K HC

Case Title: HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement from the service imposed upon the petitioner for his continuous absence from the battalion without permission for overstaying his leave for the period of 326 days.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that “An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. This is what has been done by the respondents as well as the Inquiry Officer in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Inquiry Officer has not followed either the procedure prescribed under the CRPF Rules, or the principles of natural justice”

Filing List Of Documents In Chargesheet Not Substantial Compliance With S.294 CrPC: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that merely filing a list of documents is not substantial compliance with Section 294 CrPC.

The Court held that it was necessary to give notice to the adverse party by providing them the list of the documents which are sought to be admitted or denied by the adverse party as per the section 330 of BNSS, which is equivalent of section 294 of Crpc, to ensure that the party is aware of the documents the said party has been called upon to admit or deny.

Non-Disclosure Of Confidential Intel In Public Interest Doesn't Violate Detenu's Rights: J&K High Court Upholds Detention Order

Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmed th. Nisar Ahmed Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 141

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that not furnishing confidential information to the detenu, which would have been against public interest, cannot be construed as a violation of constitutional or statutory rights.

Questions On Whether Infrastructural Project Would Be Technically Feasible Or Serve Larger Public Interest Are Beyond Scope Of Judicial Review: J&K HC

Case-Title: Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that merits of the contention raised by the petitioner as to the feasibility or viability of the infrastructural project by the government cannot be looked into by this court as it is not an appellate authority over the expert decisions regarding the project costs, provisions for entry/exit points, safety, technical feasibility of the project, and the related aspects.

Mere Existence Of Civil Remedy For Breach Of Contract No Grounds To Quash Cheating Case In Absence Of Mala Fides: J&K High Court

Case Title: Susheel Kumar Rana and others Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that the presence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, justify quashing of criminal proceedings unless the allegations in the complaint fail to disclose an offence or the proceedings are found to be malicious.

“.. mere fact that complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. It is only if it is shown that the complaint even if taken at its face value does not disclose commission of any offence or if it is found that criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance that the same can be quashed”, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.

Incomplete Disclosure Of Material Facts To Superintendent Of Police Not Strict Compliance With S.154 CrPC: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Anil Gupta and another vs Union Territory of J&K and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that not disclosing the material facts to the superintendent of police or annexing the duly sworn affidavit of the person who had made an oral complaint does not demonstrate strict compliance with section 154 CrPC for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 156(3) CrPC.

Daughter Not Suffering From Any Physical Or Mental Abnormality Cannot Claim Maintenance From Father: J&K High Court

Case-Title: ABDUL RAHEEM BHAT (Senior Citizen) vs BEAUTY JAN AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court unburdened the liability fastened upon a father by virtue of a maintenance order passed under section 488 of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir CrPC Act by the trial magistrate ordering him to pay maintenance to his major able-bodied daughters six years ago.

The court held that two unmarried major daughters who were able-bodied and did not suffer from any physical or mental disability were not entitled to receive maintenance by invoking 488 of CrPC by any stretch of claim or reasoning.

Courts' Legitimacy Must Be Established On Reasons: J&K High Court Recommends Refresher Course For Judicial Officer Over Unreasoned Order

Case Title: Hakim Nazir Ahmad Vs Commissioner SMC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

Reasserting the fundamental principle that judicial legitimacy flows from reasoned decision-making, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has come down heavily on a trial court judge for passing a cryptic, unreasoned order under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul not only set aside the impugned order but also directed that the concerned Presiding Officer be deputed for a refreshment course through the J&K Judicial Academy.

Contraband Recovered Individually From Accused Persons Travelling Together Has To Be Considered Separately At Stage Of Bail: J&K High Court

Case Title: Abdul Hamid vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that contraband recovered from accused persons individually, even when they are travelling together, has to be considered separately for each accused for the purpose for the bail.