In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has emphasized that breaches of injunction orders should be addressed through the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), rather than by registering FIRs. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani delivered this judgment while quashing an FIR and a lower court order that had directed its registration in a civil dispute.
Case Background:
The case, titled “Ghulam Mohiudin Lone & Ors vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors” (CRM(M) 120/2024), arose from a long-standing civil litigation between the parties over an immovable property. The respondent, Ghulam Mohammad Lone, had filed a civil suit in 2015 against the petitioners, Ghulam Mohiudin Lone and others, before the Sub Judge Kupwara. Various interim orders were passed, including one by the appellate court on 07.06.2017 allowing construction on the disputed land subject to certain conditions.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Improper Use of Criminal Proceedings in Civil Disputes:
The court observed that the respondent had improperly sought to convert a civil dispute into a criminal matter by obtaining an FIR registration order from the trial court. Justice Wani stated, “The impugned FIR owes its origin to the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the trial court having been held to be legally unsustainable”.
2. Correct Procedure for Addressing Injunction Breaches:
The court emphasized that the proper recourse for alleged disobedience of court orders is through Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, not criminal proceedings. Justice Wani noted, “Law is settled that a Court is empowered to take cognizance of the disobedience or breach of an order granted by it and to proceed against the offender for such disobedience or breach under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC”.
3. Abuse of Process:
The court found that the registration of the FIR was an abuse of the legal process. Justice Wani observed, “The respondents 3 herein have had complained disobedience of the injunction order passed by the appellate court on 07.06.2017 and instead of choosing to have the petitioners punished for such alleged disobedience, respondent 3 herein chose to contest the said proceedings into criminal one through the intervention of the trial court as a weapon of harassment which is not permissible in law”.
4. Quashing of FIR and Lower Court Order:
Based on these findings, the court quashed both the FIR (No. 10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered with Police Station Trehgam) and the lower court’s order dated 29.02.2024 that had directed its registration.
Also Read
Key Observations:
Justice Wani emphasized the importance of maintaining the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings: “The provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are to be exercised without there being any element of vindictiveness therein as the said provision is curative in nature with a purpose to ensure that order passed by the courts are implemented and disobedience is remedied”.
The court also reiterated the principle that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be used to prevent abuse of the court process and ensure the ends of justice.
