Lockdown FIR Against Self Claimed Journalist to Stand: Rules Jammu Kashmir High Court | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has declined to quash an FIR registered during the COVID-19 lockdown against a Bandipora resident, holding that the plea was premature and that issues raised by the accused must be tested during trial.

Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing the petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie, ruled that the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised in a routine manner, particularly when the case is still at a pre-trial stage.

The case pertains to an FIR registered in April 2020 at Sumbal in Bandipora during the peak of COVID-19 restrictions. Authorities had imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC to curb movement and prevent the spread of the pandemic.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and others were found moving in violation of these restrictions and allegedly failed to provide a valid explanation when intercepted by a police patrol. The FIR also includes allegations of assault on police personnel on duty, invoking provisions related to disobedience of orders, negligent acts likely to spread infection, and obstruction of public servants.

The petitioner had argued that he was a journalist returning home and had been wrongly implicated. However, the court noted that there was no material on record to substantiate either his professional claim or any exemption permitting movement during the restrictions.

A central argument raised by the petitioner was that the FIR and subsequent proceedings violated mandatory provisions under Section 195 CrPC and the Disaster Management framework, which require a formal complaint by a competent authority before cognizance of certain offences.

The court, however, found that a complaint had already been filed by the District Magistrate, Bandipora, and clarified an important legal distinction: while Section 195 CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance without a complaint, it does not bar registration of an FIR or investigation.

“The petitioner has approached this Court prematurely at the pre-cognizance stage,” the court observed, adding that such objections can be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage of charge or discharge.

The judgment underscores that questions relating to the validity of charges, applicability of legal provisions, and sufficiency of evidence fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. It reiterated that the High Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate factual disputes.

The court also noted that where an act may constitute offences under multiple statutes, the investigating agency has the discretion to proceed under applicable provisions, subject to safeguards against double punishment.

Finding no grounds for interference, the court dismissed the petition and directed that the trial court proceed with the case expeditiously. It clarified that observations made in the order are limited to the disposal of the petition and shall not influence the merits of the trial.

The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in exercising quashing powers and affirms that procedural and evidentiary challenges must ordinarily be addressed during trial rather than at the preliminary stage.