The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash a charge sheet arising from allegations of house trespass and assault merely because proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 CrPC had also arisen from the incident.
Judge / Bench — Justice Sanjay Dhar
Those proceedings are preventive, whereas the FIR and charge sheet seek punishment for alleged offences; their coexistence therefore did not attract Article 20’s protection against double jeopardy. The Court also rejected reliance on family hostility as sufficient to terminate prosecution when witness statements and medical evidence supported the allegations. The practical point is to distinguish preventive action from a prior prosecution and punishment, and to address the actual investigative material when seeking quashing on grounds of mala fides.
Case — Brij Lal and others v. UT of J&K and others · CRM(M) 69/2023 · 7 October 2026 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. P. S. Pawar, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.