HC puts brakes on chargesheet in Kanachak cross-FIR row, orders same IO to probe both cases

19/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 18: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed that if the investigation into a subsequent FIR arising from a Kanachak cross-FIR dispute culminates in a chargesheet, it shall not be presented before the competent court till the next date of hearing.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary passed the interim directions while hearing CRM(M) No. 869/2026, Sumit Singh & Ors vs UT of J&K & Ors, challenging the March 28, 2026 order of the Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, and consequential FIR No. 0051/2026 registered at Police Station Kanachak.
The petitioners - Sumit Singh, Manjeet Singh and Menu - have alleged that the subsequent FIR is a "counterblast" to FIR No. 173/2025, registered at the same police station on December 6, 2025, on the complaint of petitioner No. 2.
According to the petitioners, both FIRs arise from rival versions of the same alleged occurrence and have their genesis in a dispute concerning alleged encroachment upon an irrigation canal/Nallah in the Chatha Gujjran area.
The petitioners have claimed that villagers had earlier approached the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No. 1, Jammu, seeking removal of alleged encroachment from the irrigation canal and restoration of water flow.
As per their version, an altercation subsequently took place on December 6, 2025, following which Manjeet Singh approached Police Station Kanachak and FIR No. 173/2025 was registered against members of the opposite side.
The rival complainant subsequently approached the Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, seeking registration of a criminal case.
By order dated March 28, 2026, the Magistrate directed the SHO, Police Station Kanachak, to register an FIR. The Magistrate had noted that while a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence is impermissible, a counter-FIR or cross-version by the opposite party is legally maintainable and requires independent investigation.
Consequently, FIR No. 0051/2026 was registered on April 5 under Sections 74, 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The petitioners have challenged the Magistrate's order and consequential FIR, alleging that the proceedings were retaliatory and amounted to abuse of the criminal process. They have also raised allegations concerning delay, suppression of material circumstances and appreciation of earlier police reports. These contentions are yet to be adjudicated.
After hearing the matter, Justice Chowdhary issued notice. Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh waived notice on behalf of the UT and was directed to file a reply before the next date. Notice was also issued to private respondents, returnable within four weeks.
In an important interim direction, the court ordered that, subject to objections from the respondents and until the next date of hearing, if the investigation culminates in a chargesheet, the same shall await being laid before the competent court insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
The court clarified that the direction does not stop the investigation and only restrains presentation of the chargesheet before the competent court during the interim period.
The High Court also directed the SHO concerned to entrust both FIR No. 0051/2026 and FIR No. 173/2025 to the same Investigating Officer, given that the two cases represent rival versions of the alleged occurrence.
The court has not expressed any final opinion on the truthfulness of either version or the merits of the allegations, which remain open for consideration after the respondents file their objections.
Advocate Vikram Rathore appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh represented the Union Territory.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty