In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to interfere in a criminal case at the stage of investigation, emphasizing that reinvestigation or alteration of charges must be sought first before the trial court and not through a writ petition.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar passed this order while disposing of a petition filed by Parveen Begum, who sought either reinvestigation or the inclusion of Section 354 IPC (assault with intent to outrage modesty of a woman) against the accused in FIR No. 47/2024, PS Doda.
“In that background, intervention by this Court that too in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not required as charge sheet has been drawn on the strength of an investigation process which is not stated to be tainted one. The petitioner without agitating these aspects before the trial Court, seeks this Court’s intervention as the same is bound to cause prejudice to the accused,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Awards ₹1.9 Crore to Paralysed NIT Student, Calls Compensation a Right, Not Charity
The petitioner claimed she was disrobed and assaulted following a property dispute over a tree-cutting incident. However, the police investigation led to a different conclusion. As per the charge sheet, the altercation was reduced to a scuffle arising from a heated argument, with no evidence of disrobing. The police further concluded that the allegations were exaggerated due to previous enmity between the parties.
“On account of old enmity, the complainant made false accusations with regard to the happening of the incident in her house,” the Court noted.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Serious POCSO Offence: Emphasizes Victim Protection Over Liberty
Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rohit Kumar Parihar, argued that the police had colluded with the accused and ignored the petitioner’s Section 164 CrPC statement, which mentioned the alleged disrobing incident. It was contended that this warranted reinvestigation and reclassification of charges under Section 354 IPC.
However, the Court made it clear that such factual disputes and procedural lapses should be raised before the trial court, not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“All the submissions which the counsel for the petitioner is taking before this Court could be suitably taken before the trial Court... intervention by this Court is not required,” the bench stated.
Read also:- Rape Cases Cannot Be Quashed Based on Compromise, Says Bombay High Court: Warns of Perjury Action
Further, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, reaffirming that supervisory jurisdiction is only invoked in exceptional circumstances of manifest error or gross failure of justice.
Since the trial has not yet commenced, the High Court stressed that the petitioner retains full liberty to bring up her grievances—either at the framing of charges or during the course of the trial.
“More so, when the charge sheet has been filed and trial is yet to commence, the petitioner has all the opportunities to bring to the notice of the trial court the lacunas which she claims to have been left by the investigating agency.”
Ultimately, the Court concluded that no writ relief could be granted at this stage and directed the petitioner to approach the trial court for any grievance regarding reinvestigation or charge alteration.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Parveen Begum vs UT of J&K & Ors., WP (Crl) No. 35/2025
Advocate for Petitioner: Rohit Kumar Parihar
