SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Jaydeep Singh Jadeja, director of Ashpura Road Lines, in a case registered over his alleged failure to comply with notices issued by the Crime Branch during a preliminary verification of a complaint involving Rs 40 lakh.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in a judgment pronounced on September 26, 2026, held that the Crime Branch could not invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to compel the production of documents when no formal investigation or inquiry under the Code was underway. The court also set aside the order dated February 27, 2024, through which the trial court had issued process against Jadeja under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by Mohd Shafiq Sohil, who alleged that Jadeja had duped him of Rs 40 lakh in connection with a subcontract under the National Highway Development Project (NHDP) Phase-II. The contract related to the construction, under the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) mode, of a stretch of National Highway-1, now NH-44, between kilometre 172 and kilometre 182 in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to the complaint, the Crime Branch had repeatedly asked Jadeja to appear before it and provide documents required to examine the allegations. Notices were issued on May 19, 2023, and July 18, 2023, under Section 91 CrPC. The agency alleged that Jadeja failed to provide the required records or appear before the investigating authority, prompting it to file a complaint under Section 175 IPC.
Jadeja approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the complaint and the trial court’s order, arguing that the Crime Branch had no legal authority to issue the notices during a preliminary verification. He also maintained that he had submitted a detailed response along with relevant documents and that the trial court had issued process without properly considering his submissions.
Opposing the petition, the government submitted that the Crime Branch was conducting a preliminary verification of Sohil’s complaint and that Jadeja had failed to cooperate with the agency.
The High Court observed that the government had acknowledged that no formal investigation or inquiry under the CrPC was underway when the notices were issued. It held that Section 91 could be invoked to require the production of documents only in connection with an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the court noted that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to determine whether information discloses a cognisable offence warranting further action, rather than to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations.
The court further observed that preliminary verification could not be treated as a full-fledged investigation and that an inquiry officer could not compel a person proposed to be accused to provide documents or information at that stage.
Finding that the trial court had issued process mechanically, the High Court held that a complaint under Section 175 IPC could not be sustained when the underlying resort to Section 91 CrPC was legally impermissible.
The court consequently quashed the complaint titled Crime Branch v. Jaydeep Singh Jadeja and the order dated February 27, 2024. It clarified, however, that the inquiry officer remained at liberty to proceed with the original complaint filed by Sohil in accordance with law.
