The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday put a temporary halt on criminal proceedings against the makers of the film Article 370, after finding that the trial court had failed to follow mandatory legal procedure before issuing notice.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others, who had challenged a defamation complaint linked to the portrayal of a character in the film.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a complaint filed by Ghulam Mohammad Shah before the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. Shah alleged that a photograph used in Article 370 depicted him as a terrorist, which he claimed damaged his reputation.
Acting on the complaint, the Magistrate issued pre-cognizance summons on December 30, 2025, for an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Aggrieved by this step, the filmmakers approached the High Court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, arguing that the Magistrate had acted in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Magistrate had issued notice without first examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, a requirement clearly laid down under Section 223 of the BNSS.
He argued that the law does not permit a Magistrate to mechanically issue summons. “The statute makes it clear that examination on oath is not optional,” the counsel stressed during the hearing.
The petitioners also pointed out that no copies of the complaint, sworn statements, or supporting material were supplied to them, depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Court’s Observations
After perusing the trial court record, the High Court found substance in the petitioners’ grievance.
“The record reveals that notices were issued without recording the statements of the complainant or the witnesses,” the court observed, noting that this was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the BNSS.
Justice Kazmi referred to recent rulings of the Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts, which have clarified that a Magistrate must first record sworn statements before issuing notice and taking cognizance.
Quoting with approval from these precedents, the court noted that the opportunity of hearing given to an accused “cannot be an empty formality” and must be supported by material on record.
The court also flagged another lapse - the notice issued by the Magistrate was found to be incomplete, with blank columns left unfilled. Such practice, the court cautioned, reflects non-application of mind.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decree, Rejects Sale of Sister’s Property Based on Unproven Power
Interim Decision of the Court
In view of these procedural defects, the High Court held that the impugned order of the Forest Magistrate was not sustainable in law.
“The proceedings initiated on the basis of such defective process cannot be allowed to continue,” the bench said.
Accordingly, the court stayed all further proceedings in the complaint till the next date of hearing, while issuing notice to the respondent.
The trial court record was directed to be returned, and the matter has been listed for further consideration.
Case Title: Aditya Dhar & Ors. vs Ghulam Mohammad Shah
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 36/2026 with CrlM No. 72/2026
Decision Date: 06 February 2026
