High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 09 J&K CK 0071

Krishan Lal vs State Of J&K And Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 29 September 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Mithal, CJ
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Others Writ Petition No. 235 Of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 316 words

Pankaj Mithal, CJ

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of order dated 21st August 2010. The aforesaid order is a letter of Senior Superintendent of Police , District Doda, addressed to the District Magistrate Doda stating that the son of the petitioner, Bittu Kumar, had joined Hizbul Mujahedeen outfit sometime in the year 2003 and is still active. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged that he is missing and was kidnapped by the terrorists from near his house.

3.

In pursuance to the aforesaid, FIR No. 93 of 2003 was registered under Sections 364 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and 7/27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bhadarwah. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation it has been revealed that the son of the petitioner, Bittu Kumar, was not kidnapped rather he had joined Hizbul Mujahedeen outfit willingly and is actively involved in militancy related activities. Accordingly, Final Report No. 45 of 2003 (date illegible) 12/2003 was submitted.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no basis for the authorities to arrive at an conclusion that his son has willingly joined the militant group.

5.

The submission is devoid of any merit. In the matter, detailed investigations were conducted which have revealed that he was not kidnapped. He has joined the militant group willingly. Accordingly, the Final Report was also submitted. If the petitioner was not satisfied by the aforesaid investigation, he had appropriate statutory remedy of lodging a protest petition and to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This is not a matter which requires any indulgence by this court, that too, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.

6.

The writ petition, as such, is devoid of merit and is dismissed.