Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, in an order pronounced on 26 December 2025, partly allowed a landlord’s plea seeking to nullify two police cases arising from a dispute over commercial premises at Enso Tower, Anantnag. While the Court set aside a later FIR based on allegations linked to a notice produced during arbitral proceedings, it declined to interfere with the 2020 FIR alleging theft and unlawful removal of a tenant’s goods from the tenanted premises during the lockdown period. The Court held that the presence of a civil or commercial dispute, including pending civil remedies, does not by itself prevent criminal prosecution where the complaint allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

The petition arose from a dispute between a landlord and a tenant concerning the ground floor of a commercial building known as Enso Tower at Anantnag. The tenant alleged that the premises had been locked since January 2019 with substantial stock, equipment, and cash lying inside, and that despite a subsisting High Court order directing maintenance of status quo, the landlord entered the premises during the COVID-19 lockdown and removed goods. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered for offences relating to house-breaking, theft, and disobedience of lawful orders.

Also Read: Delay In Depositing Balance Sale Consideration Doesn’t Render Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable; Supreme Court

A second complaint was filed alleging that during arbitral proceedings between the parties, a forged municipal notice was produced before the Arbitral Tribunal to justify cleaning and removal of goods from the premises. It was alleged that the notice was manipulated by inserting the tenant’s name post-facto. On the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC, a separate FIR was registered for offences including cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents.

The petitioner challenged both FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the dispute was civil in nature, already adjudicated through arbitration, and that the alleged forged notice did not constitute a false document in law.

The Court examined whether criminal proceedings could continue alongside civil and arbitral remedies and recorded that “the mere fact that a 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.” Referring to settled precedent, it observed that criminal law may be set in motion if allegations disclose cognizable offences.

While considering the FIR relating to house-breaking and theft, the Court noted the commissioner’s report filed during arbitration and recorded that “the merchandise lying in the demised premises had been removed, damaged and scattered,” and that goods were shifted to portions of the building owned by the landlord. It further observed that “allowing the Municipal Authorities to remove the goods despite there being an order of status quo… without consent of the complainant, makes the matters worse.” On this basis, the Court stated that “all these facts and circumstances disclose commission of cognizable offences which are required to be investigated.”

With respect to the second FIR alleging forgery, the Court analysed the statutory definition of forgery and making of a false document. It observed that “making of a false document is the gist of the offence of forgery,” and that a document would qualify as false only if it fell within the categories enumerated under Section 464 IPC. After examining the municipal notice, the Court recorded that “by no stretch of reasoning, it can be stated that the document dated 26.03.2020 falls in the category of false document.”

The Court further noted that even if the document was produced to make an incorrect statement before the Arbitral Tribunal, “at worst, it can be a case of offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC,” which is non-cognizable. It recorded that “the learned Magistrate… could not have issued a direction… to register the FIR,” as the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence.

Also Read: Right To Speedy Trial Extends To Appeals: J&K And Ladakh High Court Disposes Criminal Appeal, Treats Section 304-II RPC Sentence As Undergone In 46-Year-Old Case

The Court directed that “the petition is partly allowed. FIR No.133/2023 for offences under Section 192, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered with Police Station, Anantnag and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The prayer with regard to quashment of FIR No.78/2020 registered with P/S, Anantnag is declined. The Case Diaries be returned to learned counsel for the official respondents.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate, with Mr. Wahid, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate; Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Gani, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Gousia, Advocate.

Case Title: Zaffar Abbas Din v. Union Territory of J&K & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-SGR:387
Case Number: CRM(M) No.90/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar