FAIZAN MUSHTAQ QAZI Vs. AZHAQURESHI
LAWS(J&K)-2020-1-23
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on January 15,2020

Faizan Mushtaq Qazi Appellant
VERSUS
Azhaqureshi Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K D SHARMA VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sanjeev Kumar,J. - (1.)The petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner also seeks quashment of the complaint pending trial before the trial Court.
Cav 2142/2019

Ms. Sabeena Naveed, learned counsel appears for the caveators. Caveat stands discharged.

CM No.61/2020

For the reasons assigned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the requirement of submission of certified copies of complaint and order dated 18-04-2019 is hereby dispensed with.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CRM(M) 1/2020

(2.)This petition has been opposed by Ms. Sabeena Naveed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as he is guilty of suppression of material facts. She points out that against the order impugned, the petitioner before coming to this Court, had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was dismissed on merits. She submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, nor has he disclosed the aforesaid fact in this petition.
(3.)When confronted with the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner reluctantly accepted the mistake and tendered unconditional apology. It was clearly pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that, for suppression of such material facts from the Court, the petitioner can be penalized by imposing exemplary cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially made feeble attempt to justify the omission, but ultimately conceded that there was indeed suppression of material facts from this Court. He, however, attributed this omission to the communication gap between him and his client.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.