RUKSANA BANO AND ANOTHER vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION PANZALLA AND OTHERS (POLICE / HOME)
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
[Through Virtual Mode]
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
st
Reserved On: 1 of June, 2026.
th
Pronounced On: 29 of June, 2026.
th
Uploaded On: 29 of June, 2026.
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.
1. Ruksana Bano ( 23 Years)
S/O Anaitullah Khan
R/O Balhama, Thakan Pora,
Rohama, Baramulla, J&K-193301
At present Delhi.
2. Nikhil Chokker (Age: 28 Years)
S/O Sh. Bhagwan Dass Chokker
R/O R-Block-2-A, Vani Vihar
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi-110059.
… Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Kunal Saini, Advocate.
[Through Virtual Mode.]
V/s
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through Incharge/ SHO Police Station,
Panzalla, District Baramulla, Kashmir
2. Ab. Aziz Khan
Son of Mohd. Ramzan Khan
R/O Balhama, Naribal, Rohama,
Baramulla, J&K-193301
3. Government of NCT, Delhi
Through its Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110002.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South-West District, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057.
5. The SHO
Police Station 40 ft Road, Block C
Sitapuri Part 2, Bindapur, Uttam Vihar
Dwarka District, New Delhi 110059.
… Respondents
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 2 of 19
Through: -
Mr Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG; and
Mr R. A. Khan, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
(JUDGMENT)
01. The Petitioners, through the medium of the present Petition
filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[BNSS], invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seek quashing of FIR
th
No. 0031 of 2025 dated 25 of May, 2025 registered with Police Station,
Panzalla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 87 and
49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS] (Section 366 IPC and 109
IPC) with respect to abduction/ kidnapping of Petitioner No.1/ abductee
and, in reference whereof, the Petitioner No.2 is also being subjected to
harassment and criminal proceedings by the Police authorities, along with
proceedings/ investigation being conducted against Petitioner No.2 in the
th
impugned FIR No. 0031 of 2025 dated 25 of May, 2025. The Petitioners
have also sought quashment of the non-bailable warrants issued vide Order
th
dated 18 of December, 2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate (Munsiff), Dangiwacha, Baramulla. Simultaneously, the
Petitioners are also seeking direction upon Respondent No.1 to initiate
penal action against Respondent No.2 and various other persons for
committing various criminal offences against the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee and also directions to Respondents No. 3 to 5 to provide
protection to the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee at New Delhi.
02. The brief facts of the case, as emerge from the perusal of the
Petition on hand, are that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee claims to be
an adult woman, resident of Balhama, Thakan Pora, Rohama, Baramulla,
th
Jammu & Kashmir, who arrived in Delhi on 9 of December, 2024 from
her hometown; that, upon her arrival in Delhi, she joined Computer
Training Course and so continued her stay in Delhi, during which time, she
met Petitioner No.2, who was always helpful and encouraging in respect of
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 3 of 19
her pursuing Computer Education; that when the Petitioner No.1 informed
her family about her friendship with Petitioner No.2, it caused them great
distress, naturally the reason being that the Petitioner No.2 belongs to
different religion; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-
Mushtaq Khan, in particular, was hell bent on getting the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee back to her hometown in Kashmir and strongly objected
the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s friendship with Petitioner No.2 and
pressurized the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee to return to her hometown
and threatened her that if she does not end her relationship with Petitioner
No.2, then the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and her family shall face
dire consequences; that, later, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s
mother called her and requested that she should visit her hometown for
celebrating Eid , on the promise that her family will allow return of
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee to Delhi, safely and without any
obstruction; that, on her promise, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee
consented to visit her family in Kashmir for Eid ; that, thereafter, the
st
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee left for Kashmir on 21 of March, 2025
nd
by Bus and reached her home around evening of 22 March, 2025; that,
upon reaching her home in Kashmir and approximately after 2-3 days of
st
celebrating Eid , which was on 31 of March, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee conveyed to her family that it was time for her to return to
Delhi for completing her Computer Education course; that, on hearing this,
her uncle-Mushtaq Khan got furious and beat her black and blue, he yelled
at her to break all ties with Petitioner No.2 and confined her in a dark and
shady room in her home and ordered her to get married to a Muslim boy of
his choice, however, that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee refused to
get married to anyone against her wishes.
03. It is further stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No. 1/
alleged abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan issued death threats against the
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and her family and said that he, together
with other relatives and villagers, would set her family home on fire and
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 4 of 19
burn everyone alive, if she did not get married, as per his wish and
th
command; that, thereafter, on 6 of April, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan, along with other relatives and uncles,
namely, Irshad Khan, Rafiq Khan, Arfaz Bhatt, Ashraf Khan, Aziz Khan
and her parental Aunt-Parmeena W/O Mayadeen Khan abducted the
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee from her home and brought her to uncle-
Mushtaq Khan’s house; that, there they beat her up for refusing to marry as
per their wish and command, assaulted her, punched and kicked her in the
face and stomach relentlessly; that, her clothes were torn and she was
assaulted and humiliated for not marrying as per their wish and command;
th
that, on the same day, i.e., 6 of April, 2025, Mushtaq Khan pushed
informant/ the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee against the wall and
choked her to the extent that she would either die or give in to his demand,
however, even after being subjected to such brutality, the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee still refused.
th
04. It is next stated by the Petitioners that, after sunset on 6 of
April, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan
pulled out a sharp blade and cut her wrist at his home, in which he was
assisted by Irshad Khan, Modena W/O Irshad Khan, Rafiq Khan and Aziz
Khan; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan, full
of hatred for Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and blinded by the veil of
honour and orthodox beliefs, refused to show any mercy, however, it was
only when the mother of Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee came and saved
her by giving first aid to stop the bleeding; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee was restrained from visiting any hospital, as they believed she
would report this incident to the authorities; that, before sunrise in the early
th
morning of 7 of April, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-
Mushtaq Khan, at his home, informed the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee
that he had found a boy, namely, Danish Khan S/O Aziz Khan, for her for
marriage and that she has to marry that boy today itself; that the Petitioner
No.1/ alleged abductee strongly refused to his demand, but he threatened
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 5 of 19
her with his blade with which he had cut her wrist and warned that this time
he would cut her throat, if she did not do as he said; that, after sunrise, in
th
the morning of 7 of April, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee was
taken back to her home by her uncle-Mushtaq Khan and other relatives,
who had beaten her, and upon reaching, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee was shocked to see that preparations were made for her marriage;
that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan took her to
a corner and threatened her to not raise any alarm or objection, as otherwise
he would kill her and set fire to her home, accordingly, ordered the
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee to sit beside the boy named-Danish Khan
S/O Aziz Khan and get married; that, out of fear for her life, under threat
and coercion, against her will and without her consent, the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee was forced to sit beside Danish Khan and enter into
marriage with him; that the marriage performed was illegal and against the
wishes of the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee refused to consummate her forced marriage with Danish
Khan; that she explained to Danish Khan that she was forced into the
th
marriage, whereafter, on 16 of April, 2025, the Petitioner’s uncle-Mushtaq
Khan, along with Danish’s uncle, whose name is also Mushtak Khan,
visited Danish’s home and first, threatened the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee to sleep with Danish and consummate the marriage to which she
refused; that, in response, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-
Mushtaq Khan attacked her and cut her neck and wrist with his sharp blade;
that Danish Khan also cut the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s wrist with
another blade that he was carrying to coerce and subjugate her.
th
05. It is further stated in the Petition that, thereafter, on 17 of
April, 2025, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan,
Irshad Khan, Aziz Khan and Danish’s uncle-Mushtaq Khan and the mother
of Danish Khan tied her arms and legs and she was raped by Danish Khan
at his home; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee was forcefully
confined to Danish’s home thereafter and, after few days, she was allowed
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 6 of 19
to go out, but only with Danish’s sister, under strict watch; that, as luck
would have it, the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee was able to seek help
from her friends, namely, Ajaz Ahmad Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar,
requesting them to help her escape from Danish’s home, to which they
th
agreed, whereafter, on 25 of May, 2025, at around 2 PM, her friend-Irshad
Ahmad Dar came and helped her escape; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee escaped voluntarily, as per her own wish, desire and volition, and
without any fraud, force, coercion, inducement, etc., from any person,
including the Petitioner No.2; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s
own conscious and well-thought decision to escape from the hands of such
murderous, brutal and inhuman people and no one should be accused/ held
responsible for this act of her; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee
reached Delhi via Indigo flight 6E2197 with Ticket PNR No. G9EH9H
th
from Srinagar on 25 of May, 2025; that, upon the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee’s arrival in Delhi, she approached her friend-Petitioner No.2 for
help, who picked her up from the Delhi Airport and, since then, she is safe
and sound and living as per her own wishes and desires, without any
influence, threat, pressure or coercion from anyone.
th
06. The Petitioners have proceeded to state that, on 25 of May,
2025, the Respondent No.2, who is father of Danish Khan, with whom
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee has been forcibly married, lodged a
complaint with Police Station, Panzalla, Baramulla with respect to
abduction/ kidnapping of Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and the Station
House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Panzalla, Baramulla registered the
th
FIR No. 031/2025 dated 25 of May, 2025, for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 87 and 49 of the BNS, 2023, against unknown
persons; that, in furtherance of the impugned FIR No. 031/2025, the friends
of the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee, including the Petitioner No.2, are
being subjected to uncalled for harassment and intimidation and brutality by
the police, apparently under the influence and pressure of the Complainant/
Respondent No.2 herein; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee, whose
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 7 of 19
th
abduction is subject matter of the impugned FIR No. 031/2025 dated 25 of
May, 2025, is before this Court and categorically states that she has not
been kidnapped, abducted or induced by anyone, rather, she has voluntarily
escaped the Complainant, his Wife, his family, including his son-Danish
and Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee’s uncles and other relatives, as has
been stated hereinabove; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee has also
come to know that the Jammu & Kashmir Police had conducted a raid at the
th
home of the Petitioner No.2 in New Delhi on 4 of July, 2025, his family
was threatened for framing them under false charges, if they did not reveal
the Petitioner No.2’s whereabouts; that, under the garb of impugned FIR
No. 031/2025, the friends of the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee, namely,
Ajaz Ahmad Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar, who helped the Petitioner No.1/
alleged abductee to escape, have been taken in custody by the Kashmir
Police to constrain the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee to return to her
home town, where death awaits her at the hands of religious
fundamentalists, extremists, orthodox and conservatives.
07. The impugned FIR No.031/2025 has been assailed by the
Petitioners herein, stating that same is nothing, but an arm-twisting tactic to
constrain the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee to return to her hometown,
so to eliminate her and set a precedent for other girls of the religion; that a
witch-hunt has been launched by the Jammu & Kashmir Police against the
Petitioner No.1, as well as Petitioner No.2, besides the Petitioner No.2 and
his family members are being unnecessarily harassed and humiliated on the
pretext of false and malicious FIR lodged by the Petitioner No.1/ alleged
abductee’s kidnapping, abduction or inducement, etc., so much so, a Non-
Bailable Warrant (NBW) has been issued against the Petitioner No.2, only
to harass and torture him; that the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee has not
been kidnapped, abducted or induced by anyone, including the Petitioner
No.2, and that she left Kashmir out of her own accord; that she is pursuing
her education in Delhi and living as per her own wishes and desires,
without any influence, threat, pressure or coercion from anyone, including
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 8 of 19
the Petitioner No.2; that she is ready and willing to record a statement to
this effect provided that the Investigation Officer visits her in Delhi or
through electronic mode/ Virtual Conference mode by creating a Remote
Point in Delhi for the same upon with prior intimation, since it is a matter of
life and death for the Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and her friends.
08. The Petitioners have also pleaded, in their Petition, that the
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee has also filed Informatory Petition Under
Section 33 of the BNSS, 2023 (previously Section 39 Cr. P.C.) for giving
st
information to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, South West
th
Dwarka, New Delhi on 19 of August, 2025 and that the Delhi Police has
also filed an ‘Action Taken Report’ before the above said Court of learned
st
Judicial Magistrate on 1 of September, 2025.
09. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Petitioners claim to be aggrieved of the impugned FIR No. 031/2025 dated
th
25 of May, 2025 and seek quashing of the same through the medium of the
present Petition.
10. The Respondent No.2/ Complainant-Ab. Aziz Khan has filed
his Objections to the Petition, wherein he has stated that the Petition is not
maintainable, in view of the fact that the Petitioner No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of Danish Aziz Khan, i.e., the son of the Respondent No.2,
who, being husband of the Petitioner No.1, has not been arrayed as a party
Respondent before this Court; that since the offence of abduction has taken
place, which was reported to the concerned Police authorities, who have
taken cognizance of the same, whereupon, investigation into the matter is
going on which cannot be allowed to be scuttled by way of filing the
Petition before this Court; that the Petitioner No.1 has been forcibly taken
away with the help of two accused persons, namely, Aijaz Ahmad Khan
S/O Yar Mohammad Khan R/O Khamoo, Rafiabad and Irshad Ahmad Dar
S/O Abdul Rashid Dar R/O Hajin, Baramulla, who were taken into custody
and have admitted that they facilitated and conspired the commission of the
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 9 of 19
crime, whereby the daughter-in-law of the Respondent No.2 was abducted
and transported to Srinagar Airport at the behest of Petitioner No.2, the
main accused in the case, who has paid Rs. 20,000/- reportedly to Aijaz
Ahmad Khan for ensuring the commission of the crime, so that the
Petitioner No.1 is sent to Delhi and, accordingly, at the Delhi Airport, the
Petitioner No.2 received her, as per the plot made
11. The Respondent No.2 has further pleaded that the Petitioner
No.1 was peacefully residing after marriage in the house of her in-laws,
however, in between, for ulterior purpose and consideration, she was
abducted and taken to New Delhi; that the marriage of the Petitioner No.1
was solemnized as per the covenants of Islam , to the knowledge of the
public at large and, more so, a well-organized marriage function took place
th
pursuant to the Nikkah ceremony on 7 of April, 2025 between the
Petitioner No.1 and the son of the Respondent No.2.
12. It is also stated by the Respondent No.2, in his Objections, that
the Petitioner No.1 is a housewife and semi-literate girl, whereas, the
Petitioner No.2 is neither running an Institution for imparting training nor
course of Computer, but, for his ulterior consideration, he devised a strategy
and well-thought out plan to abduct the Petitioner No.1 and has not spelt
out as to how and in which Institute the Petitioner No.2 is imparting
training and the so-called providing of shelter is only a cooked up story,
only to prejudice the mind of the Court; that the averments of torture, as
made in the Petition by the Petitioners, were not reported to the nearby
Police Station which is hardly two KMs away, therefore, the same are
vehemently denied; and that the father of the Petitioner No.2, through
Advocate Vijay Dager (E. No. D/2237/2013), has thrown the Petitioner
No.2 out of home and has deprived him of all his moveable and
immoveable property due to the illegal activities of Petitioner No.2 and has
got the publication to that effect issued in newspapers regarding the
disowning of the act of the Petitioner No.2.
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 10 of 19
13. In addition to his Objections, the Respondent No.2 has also
moved an application, being CrlM No. 825/2025, seeking permission of this
Court to place on record certain documents having a direct bearing on the
proper adjudication of this case. The said documents include a certificate of
marriage issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi,
th
showing that the Petitioners have, in fact, contracted marriage on 28 of
May, 2025, i.e., prior to the filing of the present Petition before this Court.
Besides, certain photographs have also been annexed with the said
application showing the marriage having been contracted between the
Petitioners. These documents are stated to have been furnished to the
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 by one Lavnish Son of Bhagwan Das, the
brother of the Petitioner No.2 herein. The said documents are, accordingly,
taken on record. CrlM No. 825/2025 is, thus, disposed of.
14. The Respondent No.1, through Station House Officer (SHO),
th
Police Station, Panzalla, Baramulla, has filed a Status Report on 15 of
th
April, 2026, wherein it has been stated that, on 25 of May, 2025, one
Abdul Aziz Khan S/O Mohd. Zaman Khan R/O Balhama, Nadibal/
Respondent No.2 herein, lodged a written complaint in Police Station,
Panzalla, stating therein that his daughter-in-law, namely, Rukhsana W/O
Danish Aziz (Petitioner No.1 herein), left her home and did not return after
several hours; that during the course of search, it came to light that she had
been, in fact, kidnapped by an unknown motorcyclist, who took her away
on his motorcycle; that, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, First
Information Report (FIR) No. 31/2025 under Section 87 BNS was
registered and investigation was set into motion.
15. It is further stated in the Status Report that, during the course
of investigation, several suspects were interrogated and it surfaced that the
victim, namely, Rukhsana, had allegedly been kidnapped by one Irshad
Ahmad Dar S/O Abdul Rashid Dar R/O Bandipora, J&K, on the
instructions of Aijaz Ahmad Khan S/O Yar Mohammad Khan R/O
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 11 of 19
Khahmoh, J&K, who, in turn, was acting at the behest of the main accused-
Nikhil Chokkar S/O Bagwan Das R/O Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
(Petitioner No.2 herein) and had received payment from him for executing
the act; that it further came into limelight that the victim was enticed and
transported by air to New Delhi, where she was handed over to the main
accused (Petitioner No.2 herein), accordingly, offence under Section 49
BNS stood established against the accused-Irshad Ahmad Dar and Aijaz
Ahmad Khan; that, during further investigation, a police party was deputed
to New Delhi for the recovery of the victim and the arrest of the prime
accused, however, since the accused was aware of his involvement and
anticipated a police raid, he absconded along with the victim, resulting in
the police party returning without any success; that, subsequently, a warrant
of arrest against the Petitioner No.2 was obtained from the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Dangiwacha, Baramulla, and another police party was
deputed to New Delhi to execute the said warrant, however, that too
returned without success, as the accused was not traced at his given address.
16. The Respondent No.1, in the Status Report, further pleaded
that, thereafter, the victim-Rukhsana (Petitioner No.1) telephonically
contacted the police authorities and stated that she had not been kidnapped
by anyone, but had travelled to New Delhi out of her own free will to
pursue her aspirations and that she was presently residing in New Delhi in a
safe and conducive environment, besides, confirming that the Petitioner
No.2 is her friend, who is helping her fulfil her ambitions and that she is not
willing to return to her native place and expressed her willingness to record
her statement before a Magistrate in New Delhi to facilitate the
investigation.
17. In the Status Report so filed by Respondent No.1, it is also
stated that it was also established that the Petitioner No.1 had earlier
travelled to New Delhi to pursue a Computer Course, during which she
came into contact with the Petitioner No.2, whereafter, she, however,
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 12 of 19
returned to her native place and, out of her own free will, entered into
marriage with the complainant’s son-Danish Aziz Khan in March, 2025 as
per Shariyat and even personally purchased all items required for her
marriage, along with the complainant, and, thereafter, began residing with
her husband; that, after approximately three months of marriage, the
Petitioner No.1 again came into contact with Petitioner No.2 through
th
accused Aijaz Ahmad Khan, whereafter, on 25 of May, 2025, she left her
in-laws’ residence with Irshad Ahmad Dar, who transported her on his
motorcycle bearing registration No. JK01AA/7506 to Srinagar Airport,
from where she boarded a flight to Delhi as the Airline ticket had already
been sent to her by the Petitioner No.2 through WhatsApp; that both the
accused persons, Aijaz Ahmad Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar, were arrested
during investigation, however, they were subsequently bailed out by the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dangiwacha, besides, the motorcycle
used in the commission of the offence was seized and later released on
Court directions.
18. The Respondent No.1, through the Investigating Agency, next
submitted that, during verification, it was revealed that the girl had neither
been tortured nor pressured into marriage by her family members, as such,
the allegations levelled in this regard were found to be false and not
supported by facts; that an abduction case stands registered at the Police
Station, Panzalla and remains under investigation, pending the formal
recording of the statement of the Petitioner No.1 before the competent
authority, in order to ascertain true facts and conclude the investigation in a
lawful manner; that the aforementioned case has been pending investigation
for a considerable period, inasmuch as, during the course of investigation,
th
Police Station, Panzalla received copy of Order dated 30 of January, 2026
passed by this Court, whereby investigation with respect to case FIR No.
0031 of 2025 has been stayed, as such, in compliance of the said Order,
further investigation in the matter has been kept in abeyance; and that, for
purpose of carrying out further investigation in the case, the Respondent
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 13 of 19
No.1 has prayed to vacate the stay in the case, so that further investigation
in the matter can be proceeded and taken to its logical conclusion.
19. Mr Kunal Saini, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, vehemently, argued that the Petitioner No.2 has been
unnecessarily and falsely implicated in a case relating to the alleged
abduction of Petitioner No.1 by the Respondent No.2, namely, Ab. Aziz
Khan, in a case registered vide impugned FIR No. 31/2025 at Police
th
Station, Panzalla, on 25 of May, 2025, for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023; that the Petitioner No.1,
who was pursuing her career in Delhi, came into contact with the Petitioner
No.2 who had been extending help of every nature in her Computer Studies
in Delhi in a Computer Institute; that the Complainant-Respondent No.2
herein had falsely implicated the Petitioner No.2 for the alleged abduction
of Petitioner No.1 on a false and frivolous complaint lodged by the
Respondent No.2, namely, Ab. Aziz Khan, claiming that the Petitioner No.1
was the legally wedded wife of his son-Danish Khan, whereas, the fact of
the matter is that due to friendship of the Petitioners, who profess different
faiths, the Complainant-Respondent No.2, who happens to be a community
member of the parental family of the Petitioner No.1, had enacted a forcible
marriage against the wishes of Petitioner No.1 by threatening and coercing
her into the marriage with his son-Danish Khan with the aid and assistance
of one Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, the uncle of the Petitioner No.1; that the
Petitioner No.1, before her alleged marriage, was subjected to cruelty by
beating and threatening; that the Petitioner No.1 had taken the help of her
friends, namely, Aijaz Ahmad Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar, who facilitated
her to reach Srinagar Airport, wherefrom, she had travelled in a flight to
Delhi Airport where she was assisted by Petitioner No.2 to reach her
destination; and that there was no case of alleged abduction, as has been
raised by the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 herein, against the Petitioner
No.2 for abduction of Petitioner No.1, as such, it was prayed that the
Petitioner No.2 having been falsely implicated for alleged abduction of
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 14 of 19
Petitioner No.1 in the impugned FIR which is a clear case of abuse of the
process of law and is liable to be quashed.
20. Mr Hakim Aman Ali, the learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the Union Territory of J&K, argued that after registration of
the case on a complaint lodged by the Complainant/ Respondent No.2-Ab.
Aziz Khan at Police Station Panzalla, District Baramulla, the police had
commenced investigation and had summoned the alleged abductee/
Petitioner No.1 for recording her statement, who, however, telephonically
informed the police that she cannot visit the Police Station, as she had been
subjected to harassment by her parental family and the alleged marital
family due to fear of life and that her statement be recorded in Delhi; that
due to filing of the instant Petition before this Court, the investigation of the
case was ordered to be stayed by this Court and, as such, no further
investigation could be carried out. He, however, added that from the perusal
of the complaint, it appears that the Petitioner No.1 is a married woman,
having been abducted, as such, an offence is stated to have been committed,
as such, thorough investigation into the matter is required, so as to bring out
the truth. He further submits that the concerned police be permitted to
investigate the matter, so as to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the complaint, seeking disposal of the instant Petition,
in order to conclude the investigation.
21. Mr R. A. Khan, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2, on whose complaint the impugned FIR was lodged at
Police Station, Panzalla, District Baramulla, for abduction of Petitioner
No.1, who he claimed to be wife of his son-Danish Aziz Khan, by two local
persons at the behest of Petitioner No.2, who is a Delhi resident, argued that
the assertions made in this Petition and the arguments advanced by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners with regard to the Petitioner No.1,
staying in Delhi to pursue her educational career are not correct, as she was
a married woman and she had been abducted from her matrimonial home
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 15 of 19
by two local persons, who had transported her to the Airport at Srinagar,
wherefrom she had flown to Delhi to join the company of Petitioner No.2;
that there was neither any Computer Institute being run by the Petitioner
No.2 nor the Petitioner No.1 was pursuing her studies in any Computer
Institute, as claimed. He has further argued that he had received documents
with regard to the alleged marriage of the Petitioners and has also annexed
photographs evidencing the performance of marriage between the
Petitioners, despite the fact that the Petitioner No.1 was a married woman
and no second marriage could be contracted during the subsistence of her
earlier marriage. He submits that the aforesaid documents had been
supplied to him by none other, but one Lavnish Son of Bhagwan Das,
brother of Petitioner No.2, who had also told him that the Petitioner No.2
had been disinherited from the property by his father for his criminal
activities. He has further argued that in a case where a married woman was
alleged to have been abducted and being confined by the Petitioner No.2 in
Delhi and also performed second marriage, during the subsistence of her
earlier marriage, there is no case of quashment of the impugned FIR and
prayed that the Petition be rejected and the investigation of the case be
permitted to continue, so as to bring the culprits to book.
22. Heard learned Counsels for the parties, perused the pleadings
on record and considered the matter.
23. During the pendency of this Petition and in compliance of
th
interim Order dated 16 of April, 2026, the statement of Petitioner No.1,
who was identified by her Counsel Mr Kunal Saini, was recorded virtually
th
by the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 30 of April, 2026. In
her statement, the Petitioner No.1 denied her alleged abduction by anybody
and, while reiterating her assertions made in the Petition, she stated that she
was helped by her two local friends, namely, Aijaz Ahmad Khan and Irshad
Ahmad Dar, to reach Srinagar Airport, from where she had flown to Delhi
and that she had not been abducted against her will by any of the persons,
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 16 of 19
rather, has been staying in Delhi of her own will and accord. She has further
stated in her statement that she has been now working as a Saleswoman in
Delhi to earn her livelihood and does not wish to go back to Kashmir,
apprehending threat to her life; that her marriage had been performed
forcibly with one Danish Khan S/O Ab. Aziz Khan/ Complainant
(Respondent No.2 herein) against her wish, who had also subjected her to
rape after the alleged marriage and that she does not wish to live with the
said Danish Khan and wants to get divorce from him.
24. From the perusal of the pleadings available on record, it seems
that the Respondent No.2-Complainant had lodged a complaint before the
Police Station Panzalla, District Baramulla, wherein he had alleged that her
daughter-in-law, namely, Rukhsana, had gone outside her home to visit
their fields, wherefrom, an unknown person kidnapped her on his
motorcycle. The Complainant/ Respondent No.2 further narrated in his
complaint that he had searched for both of them, everywhere, but
unfortunately could not find any clue with respect to his abducted/
kidnapped daughter-in-law. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, the
Police Station Panzalla, District Baramulla registered FIR No. 31/2025 in
the matter for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 87 of
the BNS, 2023.
25. The Petitioners, in their Petition, however, challenged the
registration of the case vide the impugned FIR, on the ground that a false
and frivolous case has been registered in the matter, whereas, the fact of the
matter is that the Petitioner No.1 had not been abducted/ kidnapped by any
person and that she had escaped from her matrimonial home, as she had
been forced into marriage with the son of the Complainant/ Respondent
No.2 herein by her uncle, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and other
relatives, by threatening and subjecting her to physical cruelty and that she
has been pursuing her educational career in Computers in an Institute in
Delhi, with the help of Petitioner No.2, who happens to be her friend.
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 17 of 19
26. The case of the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 herein and that
of the Prosecution is that the Petitioner No.1, a married woman-wife of one
Danish Ahmad Khan son of the Complainant-Ab. Aziz Khan (Respondent
No.2 herein), had been abducted by two local persons, namely, Aijaz
Ahmad Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar and taken to Srinagar Airport,
wherefrom she travelled to Delhi and, since then, she has been staying with
Petitioner No.2-Nikhil Chhoker. The case of the Prosecution is that due to
staying the investigation of the case, the Investigating Agency could not
further investigate the case, though it was a case of abduction/ kidnapping
of a married woman and confining her in Delhi.
27. The statement of the Petitioner No.1, who is the alleged
abductee in the impugned FIR, was recorded by the learned Registrar
th
(Judicial) of this Court pursuant to interim Order dated 16 of April, 2026,
wherein she had also admitted that her marriage had been contracted with
one Danish Khan son of the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 herein,
however, she does not wish to live with him as wife and that she wants to
get divorce from him. At the same time, as per the marriage certificate
th
issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, on 28 of May,
2025, copy whereof has been placed on record by the Respondent No.2
through the medium of CrlM No. 825/2026, the Petitioner No.1 is stated to
th
have contracted marriage with Petitioner No.2 on 28 of May, 2025 in
Delhi, besides, the photographs annexed with the aforesaid application, also
indicate that the Petitioners have performed marriage between them. This
certificate of marriage and the photographs were alleged to have been made
available to the Counsel for the Respondent No.2/ Complainant by one
Lavnish Son of Bhagwan Das, the brother of Petitioner No.2 herein, who
also informed that the father of the Petitioner No.2 had disinherited the
Petitioner No.2 from his property due to his criminal activities, including
marriage with the Petitioner No.1.
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 18 of 19
28. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, as delineated hereinabove, more particularly the statement of the
Petitioner No.1/ alleged abductee and the preliminary investigation by the
Police, coupled with the rival submissions urged at the Bar, it appears that
the Petitioner No.1, who was married with one Danish Khan, the son of the
th
Complainant-Respondent No.2 herein, on 7 of April, 2025, had left her
matrimonial home with the help of two local persons, namely, Aijaz Ahmad
Khan and Irshad Ahmad Dar, and reached Delhi, where she started living in
the company of Petitioner No.2, with whom she seems to have also
th
contracted a marriage on 28 of May, 2025, therefore, it appears that the
Petitioner No.1, despite being a married woman, even if assumed, on the
basis of her statement, that she was not forcibly abducted/ kidnapped, had
left the company of her husband and started living in with the Petitioner
th
No.2 in Delhi and later performed marriage with him on 28 of May, 2025,
before filing of this Petition, during the subsistence of her earlier marriage
with the son of the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 herein.
29. It is settled legal position that enticing away a married woman
with intention to engage her in illicit sexual intercourse with someone else
is a recognized criminal offence under Section 84 of the BNS, akin to
Section 498 of the repealed IPC. Besides, without dissolution of the earlier
marriage of the Petitioner No.1, she is stated to have performed marriage
with Petitioner No.2, which also constitutes an offence of bigamy undre
Section 82 of BNS.
30. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, in a case titled “Soyab v. State of H.P. and Ors
(2026:HHC:17115)” , wherein the Petitioner had sought custody of a
married woman to another person claiming to be her close friend,
apprehending threat from her husband and mother-in-law and admitting that
he was in a physical relationship, held that: “judicial sanctity cannot be
CRM (M) No. 25/2026
Page 19 of 19
given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the
petitioner and the detenu.”
31. Therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case,
it appears that the complaint which was lodged by the Complainant/
Respondent No.2 herein, who admittedly happens to be the father-in-law of
the Petitioner No.1, for her alleged abduction, does not suffer from any
infirmity, which may be classified into a case of abuse of the process of law
in any manner, so as to quash the impugned FIR. The apprehension of the
Petitioner No.1 with regard to threat to her life, while appearing before the
Investigating Agency, can be taken care of by directing the Investigating
Agency to examine her, at the place where she feels safe, in accordance
with law.
32. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the reasons
assigned hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Petitioners have failed to make out a case for intervention of this Court so
as to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the present Petition is
dismissed . Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of,
accordingly.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
th
June 29 , 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document