JOGINDER SERU AND ORS vs BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ORS

15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR & LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Uploaded on 15.10.2026

CRM(M) No. 611/2024



Joginder Seru and others …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


Through: Ms. Damini Chouhan, Adv.

vs


Bhushan Kumar and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: None.



Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


ORDER
13.10.2026

1. In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the criminal complaint
filed by the respondent against them and proforma respondents alleging
commission of offences under sections 500, 504, 506, 120B and 34 IPC,
which is stated to be pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kishtwar (hereinafter to be referred as the trial Magistrate).
2. As per contents of the impugned complaint, the complainant(respondent No. 1
herein) is working as labourer in the Jai Prakash Associates Limited Pakal Dul
Hydro Electric Project Drangdooru Dachhan, Kishtwar, whereas the
petitioners are also working in the same project. It is alleged that on
21.05.2024, the Labour Commissioner visited the residential area of the
company workers to check their living conditions in presence of media
persons and one of the accused persons started arguing with the media
Rakesh Kumar
2026.10.15 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

persons. It has further been alleged that on 22.05.2024, the complainant was
called by the Police of Police Post Dangdooru and when he appeared before
the Police, they told him that there is a complaint pending against him,
wherein it is alleged that he had slapped one Mr. Bhatti, which is absolutely
false because the complainant was on duty at Soorbhati at the relevant time.
3. It has been further alleged in the complaint that on 27.05.2024, the
complainant received summons from the Executive Magistrate Sounder
Dachhan and on 29.05.2024, he presented himself before the Executive
Magistrate, where he was asked to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000/-. It is
alleged by the complainant that copy of the complaint was not furnished to
him and he was asked to obtain the same from the Police Station Dachhan.
4. It has been alleged in the impugned complaint that the petitioners/accused are
influential persons, who are capable of lodging false and frivolous complaints
against the complainant with a view to defame him. It has also been alleged
that the accused persons/petitioners have leveled false allegations against the
complainant to the effect that he is a bad character which has damaged his
reputation in the society. It is alleged that the accused persons use muscle
power to threaten the complainant and they are also threatening to terminate
him from service. According to the complainant, the accused
persons/petitioners are using unparliamentary language against him, which is
causing mental agony to him.
5. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent/complainant but despite
service, he did not choose to appear.
CRM(M) No. 611/2024 Page 2 of 4

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused record of the case.
7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned complaint would show that
there are only omnibus allegations made by the complainant against the
accused persons/petitioners. No individual roles have been attributed by the
complainant to the petitioners. In fact, a bare perusal of the contents of the
impugned complaint would reveal that no offence is disclosed against the
petitioners. Merely because the complainant/respondent No. 1 was summoned
by the Police or by the Executive Magistrate in discharge of their official
functions does not make out a criminal offence against the petitioners. The
complainant has neither given particulars of threats alleged to have been
extended by the petitioners to him, nor has he given particulars of the
imputations, which are alleged to have been made by the accused/petitioners
against him. A threat of termination from service does not constitute any
criminal offence. The alleged defamatory words have not been mentioned by
the complainant in the impugned complaint.
8. On the basis of aforesaid omnibus allegations, it was not open to the learned
trial Magistrate to issue process against the petitioners. In fact, a perusal of
order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, Kishtwar would
reveal that the same has been passed without application of mind. In the said
order, the learned Magistrate has not recorded satisfaction as to which
offences are made out against the petitioners.
9. Issuance of process against an accused is a serious business and a Magistrate
before issuing a process against an accused has to apply his/her mind to the
CRM(M) No. 611/2024 Page 3 of 4

material on record and record satisfaction as to which offences are made out
against the accused. Without undertaking such an exercise, the order of
issuing process against an accused becomes unsustainable in law.
10. In the present case, as already stated, the allegations made in the impugned
complaint do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. Therefore, it
was not open to the learned Magistrate to issue process against the petitioners.
The order, whereby process has been issued against the accused, in the instant
case, reflects non application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate.
The same, therefore, is not sustainable in law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, the
impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the
petitioners are quashed.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kishtwar for information.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu
13.10.2026
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

CRM(M) No. 611/2024 Page 4 of 4