HC quashes retaliatory criminal complaint, says criminal process cannot be used for private vengeance

06/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 5: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a criminal complaint pending before a Judicial Magistrate at Bishnah, holding that it was filed as a retaliatory measure to counter an earlier FIR and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal allowed a petition filed by Parshotam Kumar, Prem Kumar and Rita Devi, setting aside the criminal complaint titled Janak Raj vs. Parshotam Kumar & Ors. as well as the Magistrate's order dated June 2, 2017, by which cognizance had been taken and process issued against the petitioners.
The petitioners, represented by advocate Pawan Khajuria, had challenged the complaint filed by Janak Raj, represented by advocate Anmol Sharma, contending that it was lodged only after an FIR had already been registered against the respondent and his family over the same incident that occurred on April 27, 2017.
According to the judgment, the petitioners had immediately approached Police Station Bishnah after the incident, leading to registration of FIR No. 93/2017 for offences under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code against the respondent, his wife and son. Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet before the competent court. The respondent subsequently filed a private criminal complaint arising out of the same occurrence.
The High Court noted that the complaint was instituted more than a month after the incident without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. It further observed that while the petitioners had produced medico-legal records of their injuries, the respondent had not placed any contemporaneous medical evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.
Justice Nargal held that the chronology of events clearly indicated that the complaint was filed only after criminal proceedings had already been initiated against the respondent and his family members, making it a retaliatory prosecution rather than a bona fide invocation of the criminal process.
Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and other precedents, the court reiterated that inherent powers can be exercised where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, observing that summoning an accused is a serious matter and that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind before issuing process. It found that the Magistrate had mechanically issued process without considering the existence of the earlier FIR, the unexplained delay and the absence of supporting medical material.
Holding that the complaint squarely fell within the category of malicious prosecution identified in Bhajan Lal, the High Court concluded that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to permitting abuse of the judicial process.
Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, along with the order taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty