NIYAZ AHMAD GABROO AND ANR MR. JAVID HAMID vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR (HOME DEPARTMENT ) — CRM(M)/69/2023
Case under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 120. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010007602023
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
Filing Number
CRM(M)/193/2023
Filing Date
28-02-2023
Registration No
CRM(M)/69/2023
Registration Date
28-02-2023
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB MISC CRIMINAL CASES ( 112 )
Sub-Category
AGAINST FIR ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL CASES (Cr)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NIYAZ AHMAD GABROO AND ANR MR. JAVID HAMID
OVAIS FAROOQ KHAN
Respondent(s)
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR (HOME DEPARTMENT )
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, SHERIGARHI SRINAGAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
FOR ADMISSION FRESH
FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH
FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH
FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH
FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-02-2023 | FOR ADMISSION FRESH |
| 08-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH |
| 07-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH |
| 24-02-2026 | FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH |
| 22-12-2025 | FOR ADMISSION NON FRESH |
Orders
Case Summary: CRM(M) 69/2023 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir quashed FIR No. 06/2023 against two Srinagar Municipal Corporation employees (a Ward Officer and Assistant Tax Inspector) who removed a traffic police kiosk from a public footpath during an anti-encroachment drive. The Court found the FIR was an abuse of process, as the petitioners acted in discharge of official duties and pursuant to judicial directions for removing encroachments. The allegations lacked specific particulars and failed to satisfy elements of Sections 353, 120-B, and 506 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRM(M) 69/2023 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir quashed FIR No. 06/2023 against two Srinagar Municipal Corporation employees (a Ward Officer and Assistant Tax Inspector) who removed a traffic police kiosk from a public footpath during an anti-encroachment drive. The Court found the FIR was an abuse of process, as the petitioners acted in discharge of official duties and pursuant to judicial directions for removing encroachments. The allegations lacked specific particulars and failed to satisfy elements of Sections 353, 120-B, and 506 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts