SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by a Srinagar dhaba operator who had accused the family of his landlord of criminal misappropriation of articles left behind in the restaurant after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and had been given a “criminal colour.”
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the revisional court, observing that there were no grounds to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment was reserved on July 7 and pronounced on July 17.
The petition was filed by Abdul Wahab Qureshi through advocate M.A. Rathore, while the respondents were represented by advocate Moomin Sultan.
According to the case, Qureshi had been operating “Punjabi Rasoi” at Old Gagribal Road, Srinagar, in a shop owned by the respondents’ mother from January 2008 until August 15, 2019. He alleged that following the abrogation of Article 370 and the ensuing disruption in the Valley, he had to leave Kashmir, leaving behind utensils, furniture and other articles in the restaurant. When he later returned and sought their restoration, the respondents allegedly refused and instead used the articles to run their own dhaba. Claiming criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, he approached the Judicial Magistrate.
Before issuing process, the trial magistrate directed the SHO, Ram Munshi Bagh, to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The police inquiry revealed that the petitioner had abandoned the premises while owing about Rs 3 lakh in rent besides unpaid electricity charges. According to the report, the respondents had retained the articles and even the petitioner’s vehicle only as security against the outstanding dues. The inquiry further recorded that a settlement had been reached under which the petitioner paid Rs 50,000 and undertook to clear the remaining Rs 2.5 lakh by June 30, 2020, but failed to do so.
Relying on the inquiry report, the magistrate dismissed the complaint on July 4, 2022. That order was upheld by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on February 4, 2023, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Justice Dhar held that the magistrate had rightly considered not only the allegations in the complaint but also the inquiry report before concluding that no criminal offence was made out.
“There was sufficient material on record before the learned trial Magistrate to conclude that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour by the petitioner by filing a criminal complaint against the respondents,” the court observed.
The High Court also ruled that the petition was effectively a second revision petition disguised as proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code except in exceptional circumstances.
“It is only in very exceptional and rare cases that High Court would entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against an order passed by a Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, I do not find any exceptional circumstance,” Justice Dhar said.
Dismissing the plea, the court concluded, “For the foregoing reasons, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.”
