Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 26 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Jaydeep Singh Jadeja, Director of M/S Ashpura Road Lines, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quash of the complaint “Crime Branch v. Jaydeep Singh Jadeja” and the order dated 27 February 2024 passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax and Shops and Establishment Act, Jammu.
  • The underlying complaint, lodged by Mohd Shafiq Sohil, alleged that Jadeja duped him of ₹40 lakhs in connection with a sub‑contract awarded under the NHDP Phase‑II project for EPC‑mode construction of a segment of National Highway‑1 (now NH‑44) from kilometre 172 to 182 in J&K.
  • The Crime Branch issued notice dated 19 May 2023 under Section 91 CrPC requesting production of documents and personal appearance; Jadeja allegedly submitted irrelevant material. A second notice dated 18 July 2023 was also issued, to which Jadeja did not comply, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 175 IPC.
  • The petitioner contended that the Crime Branch lacked jurisdiction because the allegations did not fall within the offences listed in Annexure to S.O. 232 of the J&K Government and that Section 91 CrPC could not be invoked without an ongoing investigation or inquiry under the Code.
  • Respondent (UT of J&K) argued that Jadeja’s non‑cooperation justified the complaint.
  • The Court examined Section 91 CrPC, noting that it empowers a court or police officer to summon a person only when production of a document is “necessary or desirable” for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The Court observed that the Crime Branch was conducting only a preliminary verification, not a formal investigation, and therefore the notice was ultra vires.
  • Reference was made to Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, clarifying the limited scope of preliminary inquiries.
  • The Court held that the trial court’s issuance of process on 27 February 2024 was mechanical and, given the impermissibility of the Section 91 notice, the complaint under Section 175 IPC could not stand.

Final Outcome

  • The proceedings in the complaint “Crime Branch v. Jaydeep Singh Jadeja” pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate and the order dated 27 February 2024 are hereby quashed.
  • The Enquiry Officer is at liberty to proceed with the complainant’s case in accordance with law, but the existing process against the petitioner is dismissed as an abuse of process.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Criminal Law