BHOLA RAM SINGH AND ORS. vs STATE TH.D.G.P.JAMMU AND ORS.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU




CRMC No. 128/2012
IA No. 145/2012
IA No. 124/2014

Reserved on: 10.08.2026


Pronounced on: 29.08.2026
Uploaded on: 29.08.2026

Operative part or full judgment: Full

1. Bhola Ram Singh,
.....Petitioner(s)
S/OLate Lekhen Singh,
R/O B-935, Palmvihar
Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. Sinam Kuldeep Singh,
S/O Angou Sinam,
R/O Village Kwasi Phai,
District Imphal West-I,
Manipur.

3. Bhagwan Dass,
S/O Late Nathu Ram,
Namberdar,
R/O Rakkar Chouli,
Jwalamukhi,
Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra.

4. Isher Dass,
S/O Late Lachi Ram,
R/O Village Gahlian,
P.O Bharthiyan,
Tehsil & District Hamirpur.


Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.

V/s



1. State of J&K through











.....Respondent(s)
DGP, Jammu;

2. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Doda.

3. Additional Superintendent of Police,
Bhaderwah.

4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Bhaderwah.

5. Station House Officer,
Bhaderwah.

Through :- Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA.
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 1 of 11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.
Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court in terms of Section 561-A of J&K CrPC (since
repealed (akin to section 528 BNSS 2023) for quashing the
proceedings against them in challan No. 30/2006 dated
1205.2006 titled “ State Vs. B.R Singh & Ors. ”, pending
before the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah, arising
out of FIR No. 67/1995 dated 01.06.1995 registered at
Police Station, Bhaderwah, for the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 149, 148 &
382 RPC.
2. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 is a
retired CRPF Officer, who at the time of retirement, was
holding a substantive post of Commandant 103 RAF,
petitioner No. 2 had retired as Hawaldar from CRPF in the
year 2003, petitioner No. 3, after serving in CRPF, retired on
30.11.2006, while holding the substantive post of Assistant
Commandant in CRPF and the petitioner No. 4 attained
superannuation on 30.06.2006 and was holding the post of
Sub-Inspector CRPF, Group Centre, Gurgaon.
3. It is asserted that they while serving in 120 Battallion,
CRPF at Bhaderwah in December, 1994, received an
information from reliable resources that militants have
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 2 of 11

infiltrated into Bhaderwah town to indulge in various anti-
national activities during the intervening night of
31.12.1994/01.01.1995, as a result, during the intervening
night of 30.12.1994 & 31.12.1994, the cordon was laid at
various places and searches of the area were carried out;
that while conducting the search, when the party headed by
petitioner No. 1, knocked at the house of one Bilal Ahmed
Butt, resident of Masjid Mohalla, at about 6:45 a.m, his wife
opened the door and after seeing the CRPF party outside,
she closed the door on the plea that her children were
sleeping; that CT. Rajinder Kumar of CRPF opened the door
and forced his entry inside the house, consequently, the
militants got alerted and fired at Constable-Rajinder
Kumar, who succumbed to his injuries on spot and
militants also opened fire upon petitioner No. 1, taking
positions; that an encounter ensued, in which two
militants, namely, Shahid Malik and Ghulam Abass got
killed and in the cross fire, the house owner-Bilal Ahmed
Butt also got killed; that the aforesaid operation was carried
out under the supervision of respondent No. 3-Additional
Superintendent of Police, Bhaderwah.
4. It is further pleaded in the petition that as in the encounter,
Constable Rajinder Kumar was killed by the militants,
accordingly, FIR No. 201/1994 was registered at Police
Station, Bhaderwah for commission of offences punishable
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 3 of 11

under Sections 307 & 302 RPC, 3/4 TADA & 3/25 Arms
Act; that after thorough investigation, Final Report No. 137
dated 31.12.1994 was filed before the Court, in which it
was mentioned that the owner of the house, Bilal Ahmed
Butt was killed in the encounter.
5. It is alleged that for the above-mentioned occurrence,
second FIR No. 67/1995 was registered on 01.06.1995 at
Police Station, Bhaderwah on the written complaint of
Smt. Kusum Begum-the mother of the deceased, Bilal
Ahmed Butt, for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 RPC, against the petitioners and some
others; that this case was again investigated by Bhaderwah
police and upon completion of investigation, Report No. 07
dated 04.06.1996 was filed before the learned Sub-Judge,
Bhaderwah, from the perusal whereof, it is evident that
respondent No. 5, after conducting a detailed investigation,
had closed the proceedings as “not admitted”; that the
learned Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah, however, was not satisfied
with the aforesaid report and, accordingly, vide order dated
17.04.2002, directed re-opening of the investigation in FIR
No. 67/1995; that on further investigation, the case was
concluded into a chargesheet against the petitioners, which
was laid before the court of law.
6. The petitioners are, thus, aggrieved of chargesheet No.
30/2006 dated 12.05.2006, presented against them for the
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 4 of 11

commission of offences punishable under Sections 302,
452, 148, 149 and 382 RPC wherein non-bailable warrants
were issued against the petitioners and subsequently, the
learned Sub-Judge Bhaderwah reviewed its own order and
in terms of Section 549 Cr.PC gave an option to the
Commanding Officer of 120 Bn., CRPF, for exercising option
for the trial of the petitioners, though there was no question
of court martial of the petitioners as CRPF officers/officials.
7. In the aforestated factual background, petitioners, assailing
the impugned chargesheet, seek quashing thereof on the
two grounds; firstly that no second FIR, wherefrom
chargesheet impugned herein had resulted, could be
registered, when already with regard to the same
occurrence, wherein a CRPF Jawan had also got killed, an
FIR had been registered and concluded, indicating that the
deceased Bilal Ahmad Butt, in whose house encounter had
taken place causing death of two militants and a CRPF
Constable, had also died in cross fire; and secondly the
petitioners having the legal protection of the Armed Forces
(Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 cannot be
prosecuted, without a valid sanction to prosecute them, in
terms of this Act.
8. Pursuant to notice, objections have been filed by the
respondents, asserting therein that this petition raises
disputed questions of facts; that the petitioners have also
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 5 of 11

suppressed the material facts of the case from the Court ;
that during investigation, a „prima facie‟ case has been
made out against the petitioners; that after recording the
statements of complainant Kulsum Begum and one-Mst
Asia Begum, i.e., widow of the deceased-Bilal Ahmed, who
were eye witnesses, the Court directed the Police Station,
Bhaderwah for further investigation, which has since been
completed and the impugned challan has been produced
before the Court of law. Finally, it has been prayed that the
instant petition be dismissed.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued
that the impugned challan has been produced in violation
of legal provision of Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu
& Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, as no prior sanction
of the Central Government was obtained for prosecuting the
petitioners; that for one incident and one occurrence, two
separate FIRs were lodged, which is illegal and irregular as
for one occurrence, i.e., encounter on 31.12.1994, two
separate FIRs were lodged; that there cannot be second FIR
in respect of the same cognizable offence, same incident or
same occurrence and for one incident, two separate FIRs
were lodged and subsequently, two contradictory final
reports were filed by the prosecution; that as per the
prosecution‟s own case in the Final Report No. 137 dated
31.12.1999 arising out of first FIR No. 201/1994, it was
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 6 of 11

specifically mentioned that deceased Bilal Ahmed Butt was
killed in an encounter, which took place in the morning of
st
31 December, 1994 and was not murdered by the
petitioners, whereas in Final Report No. 7 dated 04.06.1996
arising out of second FIR No. 67 of 1995, it was concluded
specifically that deceased Bilal Ahmed Butt was murdered.
10. Mr. Sethi further argued that the learned Sub-Judge,
Bhadewah, suo-motu, re-opened the case after a gap of six
months, vide order dated 17.04.2002, abused the process of
law, resulting into miscarriage of justice to the petitioners,
and after a long delay of six months ordered to lodge FIR, as
a result FIR No. 67/1995 was registered; that after
investigation challan was produced without seeking prior
sanction from Government of India under Section 197
Cr.PC, and in terms of the AFSPA, which is a pre-requisite,
as the petitioners at the time of alleged occurrence, were in
active service of armed force of Union of India. Finally, it
has been prayed that the challan pending adjudication
before the court of learned Sub Judge, Bhaderwah, against
the petitioners be quashed.
11. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat-GA, learned counsel for the
respondents, ex-adverso, argued that the gravity of charge
against the petitioners is based upon a complaint lodged by
one-Smt. Kusum Begum, the complainant in the case, who
has alleged that her son-Late Bilal Ahmed was dragged from
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 7 of 11

her house and shot dead in the broad day light by the CRPF
personnel under the command of petitioner No. 1 and that
the petitioners and others are responsible, for the death of
her son; that this court, while invoking inherent
jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial in a case so as to
return a finding as is being agitated by the petitioners
through their petition, seeking quashment of the
chargesheet arising out FIR No. 67/1995 registered at
Police Station, Bhaderwah.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
after registration of the case against the petitioners on the
complaint of the mother of the deceased-Bilal Ahmed Bhat,
the case was investigated and the chargesheet had been
laid against all the petitioners and as per his information,
the case had been committed to the Sessions Court for trial
where the matter is under consideration of the
charge/discharge.

13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitting that two of the petitioners have passed away
during the pendency of this petition, conceded that the
matter has been posted for consideration of charge before
the trial court.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and considered the matter.
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 8 of 11

15. Though the petitioners have challenged the chargesheet on
various grounds including that two FIRs cannot be
registered arising out of the same occurrence, however, as
per the FIR lodged by the mother of the complainant, a case
has been investigated and chargesheet has been concluded
on the ground that the complainant‟s innocent son Bilal
Ahmed Bhat had been dragged out from his house after the
encounter was over and was killed outside his house
without his involvement in any terrorist activity. In this
backdrop, the contention on behalf of the petitioners, who
are accused to have killed the deceased, after the
encounter, regarding registration of two separate FIRs,
about the same incident/occurrence is a factual aspect of
the matter, which cannot be gone into by this court,
exercising inherent jurisdiction. In view of the settled law
that this court cannot conduct a mini trial for ascertaining
the truth. In the face of the rival submissions, such a
course would be available during trial, as such, this ground
is found to be untenable and is rejected.
16. The second contention raised in this petition is with regard
to applicability of the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir)
Special Powers Act, 1990 of which Section 7 provides that
in a chargesheet presented against the members of the
Armed Forces for any offence during an official duty in
disturbed areas, cognizance can be taken by the court on
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 9 of 11

prior sanction to prosecute from the Central Government.
Both the counsel for the parties have admitted that Doda
district was a declared disturbed area at the relevant point
of time and the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special
Powers Act, 1990 was, thus, applicable to the case of the
petitioners being members of the Armed Forces (CRPF),
while being posted in Bhaderwah, where the alleged
occurrence had taken place on 31.12.1994.
17. The Apex Court in the recent judgments titled “Rabina
Ghale & Anr Vs. UOI & Ors and Anjali Gupta Vs. UOI &
Ors” has held that proceedings are liable to be continued
provided sanction for prosecution is granted under the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and it was directed that
the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall remain
closed and in case sanction is granted, at any stage, under
AFSP Act, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
may continue and may proceed in accordance with law and
be brought to a logical conclusion.
18. In this legal backdrop, the impugned chargesheet is not
liable to be quashed, by this court, exercising inherent
jurisdiction, without affording an opportunity to produce
the requisite sanction to prosecute by the trial court, at the
time of consideration of charge/discharge.
19. Since the matter is stated to be posted for consideration of
the charge, by the trial court at the stage of
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 10 of 11

charge/discharge, this petition is dismissed at this stage,
with a direction to the trial court to proceed in the matter,
subject to production of requisite sanction to prosecute,
from the competent authority, in terms of Armed Forces
(Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990.
20. A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the court of
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, for
information and compliance.
21. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with
connected application(s), in the above terms.

(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
29.08.2026
Naresh/Secy.

Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Naresh Kumar
2026.08.29 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRMC No.128/2012 Page 11 of 11