‘No absolute immunity’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court junks Sufi singer’s plea to quash rape attempt FIR

Allegation of abuse, attempt to rape

The case originated from a criminal complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioners manhandled, abused, and beat her up over a dispute.

A second complaint, filed the same day, alleged that the petitioners used abusive language and attempted to rape her. Consequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under sections 74 (criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A subsequent FIR was also registered against some of the petitioners for related offences.

The petitioner filed the plea and sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings initiated against them. He also prayed that the respondents be directed not to harass them.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Asif Bhat and Arshid Bashir submitted that the FIR was baseless and was aimed at harassing, humiliating, and falsely implicating them. They further argued that the petitioners are respectable citizens and have not done any such act as would demand a criminal legal action against them.

The respondent, by filing the complaint, is actually trying to settle scores with them, as some verbal altercation had taken place between the parties earlier, they argued.

‘Nothing substantial done yet’

The petitioners are seeking the quashing of the FIR and the consequent proceedings initiated. However, it needs to be seen whether any of the four circumstances/situations, as pointed out, is disclosed, the court stated.

The answer is in the negative as none of the ingredients, as are required to be established for pressing into service the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 528 (inherent powers of high court) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), are fulfilled to warrant the interference of this court.

It appears from the perusal of the case file that the police concerned have dealt with two separate complaints by way of a single FIR, being related to a similar kind of activity, after having been merged for investigation purposes, the judge added.

One more FIR was also registered at the instance of the complainant against some of the petitioners. These events took place in May 2025. Almost a year has elapsed since, the court noted, adding that nothing substantial has been done, so much so that the petitioners/accused have not even been questioned by the police, despite there being no restraint issued by this court to the police concerned, and despite there being a rejection order of the anticipatory bail application.

Question of delay in probe

From the material placed on record, and that forming part of the case diary, it does warrant that the criminal case must proceed against the petitioners without any further unnecessary delay, the court said.

In terms of the order dated 06.08.2025, it had only directed the respondent authority not to take any unwarranted coercive measures during the investigation of the case against the applicants/petitioners. However, it does not, by any stretch of imagination, mean that the petitioners would enjoy an absolute immunity to the course of law, it further added.

The judge pointed out that it would certainly be a travesty of justice in case the challan is not allowed to be presented in the case for any further time, as already a lot of time has been wasted unnecessarily by the petitioners for such a course to be adopted.