'Cannot Enjoy Immunity Due To Stature': J&K&L High Court Declines To Quash FIR U/S 528 BNS Against Sufi Singer Over Parking Dispute
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
3 April 2026 10:59 AM IST
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against a group of accused, including a reputed Sufi singer in a parking dispute, observing that the investigation had been unnecessarily delayed due to the petitioners misreading an interim order as granting them absolute immunity from the course of law.
The accused were alleged to have used unparliamentary/abusive language and attempted to rape a woman who had raised her voice against them allegedly illegaly parking their vehicles outside her gate.
The Court has directed the police to present the charge sheet without further delay and reminded the investigating agency that the majesty of law admits no distinction based on the stature or influence of the accused.
The bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed,
"The investigating agency is reminded, in unequivocal terms, that the majesty of law admits no distinction based on the stature, influence, or standing of the accused, and it is therefore incumbent upon the police to always proceed and deal with the cases strictly in accordance with law, guided solely by evidence and fairness, uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations whatsoever."
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as well as the consequential proceedings. The petitioners also sought a direction that the respondents be restrained from harassing them.
A criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioners had manhandled, abused and beaten her when she raised an objection regarding parking of the petitioners' vehicles in front of the main gate of her residential house. Another complaint filed on the same day alleging that the petitioners again used unparliamentary/abusive language and attempted to rape her. On the basis of these complaints, an FIR was registered against the petitioners. A separate FIR was also registered against some of the petitioners for offences under Sections 76, 115(2), 351(2) and 191(2) BNS.
The petitioners moved an application for anticipatory bail before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who granted interim bail. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present quashing petition before the High Court in which the court issued notice and and in interim order directed that the police may proceed with the investigation but shall not present the final report/challan before the competent court, and also directed the Investigating Officer not to take any unwarranted coercive measures against the petitioners.
Subsequently, the complainant moved an application alleging that the petitioners had repeated the offence after obtaining interim bail and were continuously harassing her. The trial court, after perusing the case diary and hearing arguments, rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners, holding that they did not deserve the concession of bail.
The incident dated back to May 29, 2025, and by the time of the High Court's judgment, almost a year had elapsed. The investigation was complete, but the challan could not be presented because of the interim order dated August 6, 2025.
Court's Observation:
The Court noted that the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS has consistently been held to be exercised cautiously, carefully, and sparingly, and can be invoked only to give effect to any order passed under BNSS, to prevent abuse of process of court, to secure the ends of justice, or to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Examining the grounds raised by the petitioners, the Court found that none of the ingredients required to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS were fulfilled. The petitioners had contended that the allegations were baseless, aimed at harassment, fabricated, highly exaggerated and inherently improbable and that the complainant was trying to settle scores and was habitual of creating scenes and that no prima facie offence was made out.
The Court observed that the petition appeared to be more an attempt to raise extraneous issues, and the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel appeared to obfuscate the real issue rather than assist in its determination. The Court held that the material placed on record and forming part of the case diary did warrant that the criminal case must proceed against the petitioners without any further unnecessary delay.
The Court expressed strong concern over the manner in which its interim order had been interpreted. It clarified that the order dated August 6, 2025 only directed the Investigating Officer not to take any unwarranted coercive measures against the petitioners, and did not, by any stretch of imagination, mean that the petitioners would enjoy absolute immunity from the course of law. The Court observed that the police had taken its hands off the investigation, apparently misreading the purport of the judicial order.
The Court noted that the CD file produced by the respondents did not inspire confidence that the investigation had remained wholly insulated from extraneous considerations, and remarked,
“…. The CD file produced by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 does not inspire confidence that the investigation has remained wholly insulated from extraneous considerations, and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that factors other than the merits of the case, possibly including the stature of the accused, may have weighed in impeding a prompt and impartial course of action. Law does neither differentiate nor discriminate.”
The Court reminded the investigating agency that equality before law is not a mere constitutional slogan but a binding mandate, and any discernible hesitation in pursuing the matter with promptitude invites the inference that the investigative agency has not remained entirely impervious to the standing or influence of the persons involved.
Finding the petition to be without any merit, the Court dismissed the same along with connected applications. The interim direction was vacated, and the police concerned was directed to present the challan before the competent court of law without any further delay.
The trial court was directed to proceed ahead in the matter without getting influenced by any of the observations or findings recorded by the High Court. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police for information and necessary action.
Case Title: Petitioners v. Union Territory Through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 56
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocates Mr. Asif Bhat and Mr. Arshid Bashir
Respondent No. 1: Government Advocate Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah
Respondent No. 2: Advocate Mr. Sajad Ahmad Mir with Ms. Ifra Milad