BURHAN AHMAD BEIGH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT)

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No. 234/2022

Reserved on: 14.10.2026
Pronounced on: 23.10.2026
Uploaded on: 2310.2026
Operative part or full Judgement: Full


Burhan Ahmad Beigh
…Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG for R-1 to R-4
Mr. Z. A.Qureshi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Athar Rashid, Advocate for R-5

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. The genesis of the dispute lies in the rent
agreement entered into between the parties on
25.08.2017, whereby the petitioner was inducted
as a tenant in respect of an area measuring
approximately 4,000 square feet on the third floor
(top floor) of Block-B, Hadika Complex, Bhagat
Barzulla, to be used as office space for a period of
ninety-six (96) months with effect from November
1
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

2017. It appears that, shortly after the
commencement of the tenancy, disputes arose
between the parties, with each side advancing its
own version leading to the present controversy.
2. Respondent No. 5 went to lodge a report with the
In-charge, Police Station Sadder, alleging therein
that the petitioner, by projecting himself as the
Assistant General Manager in AMITY University,
Gurgaon, Delhi, approached him for acquiring
space in his building for setting up an office to
facilitate the admissions of boys and girls to
AMITY University and other colleges situated
outside the erstwhile State of Jammu and
Kashmir. It was further alleged that the petitioner
subsequently conveyed that the entire space in
the building was required by him for setting up an
office to conduct business for Big Basket and
Pacific Group Companies, located at Gopal Dass
Complex, Connaught Place, New Delhi, for which
an area measuring approximately 20,000 square
feet would be required. In response, respondent
No. 5 initially offered space measuring
approximately 13,000 square feet, which was
2
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

allegedly accepted by the petitioner, whereafter a
draft agreement was prepared and approved for
finalization by the parties.
3. It is further alleged that, pursuant to the
proposed arrangement and the specific
requirements as conveyed by the petitioner,
respondent No. 5 invested approximately Rs.
25.00 lakhs towards carrying out necessary
additions, alterations, modifications etc. in the
building and thereby making all the five floors
ready for occupation and for establishing a fully
equipped canteen. Thereafter, the petitioner took
possession of the third floor of the building on a
monthly rent of Rs. 1.40 lakhs. However, when
the final agreement was presented, respondent
No. 5 allegedly discovered several changes and
deviations from the original draft approved.
Nevertheless, on the assurance of the petitioner
that the discrepancies would be rectified,
respondent No. 5 signed the agreement.
4. It was further alleged that, upon becoming
suspicious, respondent No. 5 approached AMITY
University and came to learn that the petitioner
3
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

was neither an official of nor associated with the
said University. On the basis of these allegations,
respondent No. 5 claimed to have been misled and
induced by the petitioner to part with possession
of the premises, which the petitioner thereafter
allegedly never used but locked unlawfully with
the intention of wrongfully occupying and
grabbing the property. On the basis of the
aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 207/2018 came to
be registered at Police Station Sadder for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections
419 and 420 RPC. Investigation was accordingly
undertaken and, upon its completion, the charge-
sheet was presented before the competent court.
It is also pertinent to note that, as reflected in the
record, the petitioner neither appeared before the
Investigating Agency nor has surrendered before
the court below and the Investigating Agency has
sought appropriate action for declaring him an
absconder.
5. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
seeking quashment of the FIR in question as well
4
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

as the charge-sheet, primarily on the ground that
the dispute between the parties is purely of civil
nature and has been given the colour of a criminal
offence allegedly with an object of harassing and
intimidating the petitioner and compelling him to
accede to the demands of respondent No. 5.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments titled Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar
Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 INSC 19,
Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Another v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others , 2024 INSC 117, decided
th
on 19 February 2024, Anukul Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2025 INSC 1153,
th
decided on 24 December 2025 and V. Ganesan
v. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police
th
and Another , 2026 INSC 265, decided on 19
March 2026 during the course of arguments.
7. Learned counsel has contended that criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue
where the allegations, even if taken at their face
value, essentially disclose a civil or contractual
dispute and do not satisfy the ingredients of the
5
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

offences invoked. It is further contended that, for
making out an offence of cheating, the dishonest
or fraudulent intention must be shown to exist
right from the inception of the transaction. Any
subsequent disagreement or breach of contractual
obligations, by itself, would not constitute the
offence of cheating. Learned counsel has urged
accordingly that the inherent jurisdiction vested
in this Court may be exercised to prevent abuse of
the process of law, particularly since criminal
proceedings appear to have been initiated to exert
pressure in a dispute which is essentially civil in
nature having arisen out of a contractual
transaction.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent No.5 has submitted that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner stand
substantiated by the material collected during the
course of investigation. It is contended that the
Investigating Agency, after conducting a thorough
and objective investigation, has collected
sufficient materials to warrant the prosecution of
the petitioner and has accordingly laid the charge-
6
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

sheet before the competent court. Learned senior
counsel has further argued that the grounds
raised by the petitioner involved appreciation of
disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone
into and dealt appropriately by this Court in
inherent jurisdiction seeking quashment of the
FIR and charge-sheet. According to learned senior
counsel, the petitioner can raise all permissible
defences before the trial court, which is competent
to consider the same in accordance with law. It is
further submitted that the present petition has
been filed with the sole object of delaying and
protracting the criminal proceedings and that no
ground for exercise of the extraordinary or
inherent jurisdiction of this Court is made out. On
these grounds, dismissal of the petition has been
sought.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
10. It is no longer res integra that the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised
sparingly and with circumspection, particularly
where the allegations are required to be examined
7
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

in the course of regular proceedings and no
exceptional circumstances warranting interference
are made out. The petitioner has challenged the
FIR in question, the charge-sheet and all
consequential proceedings, primarily on the
ground that the allegations contained in the
complaint and the charge-sheet do not disclose
the commission of any offence, much less the
offences alleged therein, and that the dispute is
purely civil in nature, to which a criminal colour
has been imparted only to pressurize the
petitioner to accede to the demands of respondent
No. 5.
11. It needs to be borne in mind that, while examining
a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, this
Court is required to consider the allegations in the
complaint/FIR and the material collected during
investigation, without embarking upon a detailed
examination of the merits of the case. If, upon a
plain reading of the allegations, the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are not
disclosed, interference may be warranted.
However, when the allegations, taken at their face
8
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

value, prima facie disclose the commission of an
offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed
merely because the dispute may also give rise to
remedy under civil law.
12. A perusal of the complaint and the report of the
Investigating Officer reveals that the petitioner
allegedly represented himself to be an Assistant
General Manager of AMITY University, Gurugram,
with a view to gain the confidence of respondent
No.5 and inducing him to let out his commercial
premises. The said representation is alleged to
have turned out to be false. By that time,
however, respondent No. 5 had already let out
approximately 4,000 square feet of
accommodation situated on the third floor of the
complex to the petitioner for setting up an office.
13. It is further alleged that the petitioner represented
that he would require the entire accommodation
in the building for establishing the office of the
private companies, Big Basket and Pacific Group,
stated to be located at Gopal Dass Complex,
Connaught Place, New Delhi. Acting upon such
representations, respondent No. 5 allegedly
9
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

incurred expenditure of approximately Rs. 25.00
lakh on modifications to the premises in
accordance with the requirements conveyed by
the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged not to have
subsequently taken the entire premises as
represented and, even in respect of the premises
actually taken on rent, defaulted in payment of
rent from the very next month. It is further alleged
that he continued to retain possession of the
premises by keeping them under his lock and key,
without paying rent or other charges, including
electricity charges.
14. Thus, on a prima facie consideration of the
allegations, it emerges that the petitioner is
alleged to have made false representations
concerning his status, the purpose for which the
premises were required and the proposed use
thereof, thereby inducing respondent No. 5 to part
with possession of the premises and incur
substantial expenditure which he might not
otherwise have incurred. The question whether
the petitioner possessed a dishonest intention at
the inception of the transaction, and whether the
10
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

allegations are ultimately established, are matters
to be examined in accordance with law. At this
stage, however, the allegations cannot be treated
as disclosing merely a subsequent breach of
contractual obligations, divorced from the alleged
initial representations.
15. In these circumstances, the allegations, taken at
their face value, prima facie warrant examination
with reference to the ingredients of cheating as
defined under Section 419 RPC and made
punishable under Section 420 RPC. It cannot,
therefore, be held at this stage that the charge-
sheet does not disclose the commission of any
offence. The first contention raised on behalf of
the petitioner, accordingly, does not merit
acceptance.
16. Adverting to the judgment cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner in Naresh Aneja @
Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar
Pradesh , the facts and circumstances of the said
case are distinguishable from those of the case in
hand. In that case, respondent No. 2 had initially
submitted a complaint before the Senior
11
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

Superintendent of Police, Janpad, alleging
inappropriate conduct at the workplace and
threats to commit murder. A preliminary inquiry
was conducted and a report was submitted to the
competent authority. Thereafter, the complainant
approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gautambuddh Nagar, by way of an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that the
complaint had not been acted upon and that no
investigation had been conducted. Pursuant to
the directions of the Magistrate, FIR No.
1074/2019 was registered for offences under
Sections 354 and 506 IPC, followed by the filing of
a charge-sheet. The earlier complaint made to the
Senior Superintendent of Police had not been
disclosed.
17. In the peculiar factual circumstances of that case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the
allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of the
offences alleged and also took note of the
suppression of material information regarding the
earlier complaint. The said judgment, therefore,
does not advance the petitioner’s case in the facts
12
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

and circumstances presently under consideration,
where the allegations of inducement and the
consequential acts attributed to the petitioner are
required to be examined on their own merits.
18. In Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
the settled principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Court emphasized that such jurisdiction,
though wide, is subject to self-imposed restraints
and must be exercised sparingly. It was further
reiterated that criminal proceedings may be
quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in
their entirety, do not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence, or where the
proceedings are manifestly attended by mala fides
and amount to an abuse of the process of law.

19. The said judgment, however, arose from a
materially different factual background, in which
the allegations were found to disclose a civil
dispute concerning a loan transaction and the
execution of documents as well as the
surrounding circumstances supported the
13
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

conclusion that prosecution had been launched
maliciously. However, in the present case, the
allegations extend beyond a mere default in
payment of rent and include specific allegations of
false representation purposely made for inducing
the respondent No. 5 to part with possession of
the premises and incur substantial expenditure
on the modification therein.

20. In the case in hand, the allegations taken in
totality on the face value, sufficiently disclose
prima facie the necessary ingredients of the
offences invoked in charge sheet.
21. In V. Ganesan v. State , the applicability of the
principles laid down therein is required to be
considered in the context of the factual matrix of
the case to the extent that the said judgment
reiterates the settled position that criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue
where the allegations do not disclose an offence or
where the process of law is being abused, the
principle is unexceptionable. However, the specific
allegations of inducement and misrepresentation
made in the present case does not help the
14
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

petitioner in establishing that the proceedings are
liable to be quashed at the threshold.
22. The other judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable,
insofar as the factual circumstances and the
nature of the allegations considered therein are
materially different from those arising in the
present case. The mere availability of a civil
remedy does not, by itself, preclude the institution
or continuation of criminal proceedings where the
allegations also prima facie disclose the
commission of a criminal offence. The applicability
of the said judgment must, therefore, be assessed
in the light of the allegations and material forming
the basis of the present prosecution.
23. It is also submitted on behalf of respondent No. 5
that the petitioner has not appeared before the
Investigating Agency to explain his position or
extend cooperation in the investigation. The
petitioner has, likewise, not appeared before the
Trial Court, and the charge-sheet is stated to be
at its initial stage. While the aforesaid
circumstances cannot, by themselves, determine
15
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

the merits of the prayer for quashing, they do not
furnish any ground for granting the relief sought
in the present petition.
24. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all permissible
factual and legal pleas before the Trial Court,
including such pleas as may be available to him
in an application seeking discharge, in accordance
with law. This Court, in proceedings of the
present nature, cannot undertake a detailed
appreciation of disputed facts or assess the
evidentiary worth of the material collected during
investigation, particularly when the allegations,
taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the
commission of the alleged offence.
25. For the foregoing reasons, no case for interference
by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction is made out and the present petition
is dismissed . It is, however, clarified that the
observations made hereinabove are confined to
the adjudication of the present petition and shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on
the ultimate merits of the case. The Trial Court
shall proceed with the matter independently, in
16
CRM(M) No. 234/2022

accordance with law, without being influenced by
any observation made in this order.
26. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Trial
Court for information and compliance forthwith.
(YASH PAUL BOURNEY)
JUDGE

SRINAGAR
23.10.2026
“Dar Manzoor”
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

17
CRM(M) No. 234/2022