Kanoon Ki Dastak, Jammu (2026)

24/08/2026

“Residence Is an Urgent Relief”: J&K High Court Says DV Victims Need Not Wait for Trial to End

Srinagar: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that residence is an urgent relief under the Domestic Violence Act and an aggrieved woman need not wait for the conclusion of the trial to obtain an interim residence order.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a woman, who had challenged the setting aside of a trial court order directing her husband to provide her safe and secure accommodation in the shared household.

The High Court held that Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act empowers a Magistrate to grant interim relief, including an interim residence order, during the pendency of proceedings under Section 12.

The Court clarified that although a final residence order under Section 19 may be passed while finally disposing of the application under Section 12, an interim residence order can be granted at an earlier stage.

For granting such interim relief, the Magistrate is not required to conduct a full-fledged trial. The Court said the Magistrate only needs to draw satisfaction from the material placed before him that the application prima facie discloses an act of domestic violence, or a likelihood of such violence.

Justice Dhar underscored the protective purpose of the legislation, observing that a residence order is an “urgent relief” intended to protect a woman from being left without shelter.

The High Court further held that the contrary view taken by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara— that residence relief could be granted only after conclusion of the trial— was inconsistent with Section 23 of the DV Act and its legislative object of providing immediate relief from domestic violence.

The Court accordingly set aside the Sessions Court order and restored the legal position that interim residential protection can be granted even before the main DV proceedings are finally decided.

23/08/2026

Jammu court sentences drug convict to 3 years in 18-year-old NCB case

JAMMU:// A local court has sentenced a drug peddler to three years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000, bringing to conclusion an 18-year-old narcotics case, the Jammu unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) said on Sunday.

The NCB secured the conviction of Kunnu Bharti alias Abhinandan, who had jumped bail granted in 2010 and remained beyond the reach of the trial for several years, a spokesperson of the agency said.

On December 3, 2008, a team of NCB recovered 960 grams of charas, concealed in a polythene bag, from the possession of Bharti in Kashmir Basti area of Jammu.

23/08/2026

📢 Become a Subscriber of Kanoon Ki Dastak! ⚖️

Get exclusive access to 450+ important judgments covering different points of law, along with PDF copies of all important judgments and court orders shared on our main page.

🔍 Simply search any law point in the Subscribers’ search engine and instantly find relevant judgments.

Your subscription supports independent legal journalism and our mission to promote legal knowledge.

Be a Subscriber. Be a Supporter.

Subscribe at: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1HdDpcz7XQ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

23/08/2026

J&K’s Kulgam Court Orders CCTV Footage to Verify Accused’s Claim He Was in Police Custody When POCSO Offence Allegedly Occurred

23/08/2026

J&K High Court Examines Making Family Court Proceedings More Litigant-Friendly

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has initiated an examination of the scope of Sections 13 and 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, with a focus on making proceedings before Family Courts more litigant-friendly without compromising legal consultation and counselling.

Justice Rahul Bharti, hearing the matter on August 11, 2026, observed that the case provides an opportunity to examine how proceedings under the Family Courts Act can be conducted in a manner that reduces unnecessary hardship to litigants.

The matter concerns a minor girl, Zainab Gowhar, who, through her mother, has approached the Family Court seeking maintenance from her father under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the general manner of proceedings before the Family Court was not sufficiently encouraging and could sometimes become mechanical rather than litigant-friendly.

Particular concern was raised over requiring the minor petitioner to appear personally along with her guardian mother on every date of hearing, including dates on which no effective purpose would be served by their presence.

The counsel submitted that repeated and unnecessary appearances could cause frustration to litigants and, in some cases, even compel them to abandon their legal claims merely to avoid the rigours of repeated court appearances.

Justice Bharti referred to judgments of the High Court of Karnataka, including High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka and Mrs. Komal S. Padaukone v. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore City & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 Karnataka 427, while considering the issue.

The Court has called for the scanned record of File No. 244/Petition, titled Zainab Gowhar v. Gowhar Rasool Bhat, pending before the Additional Judge, Family Court (4th Additional District Judge), Srinagar.

The Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, has been directed to ensure that the record is received before the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed for continuation on August 21, 2026.

The proceedings could potentially provide important guidance on balancing the Family Courts’ objectives of counselling and legal assistance with the need to ensure that litigants, particularly minors and their guardians, are not subjected to unnecessary procedural hardship.

Rahilla Khan, Assisting Counsel vice Mohsin S Qadri, Senior AAG, appeared for the petitioner.

22/08/2026

J&K High Court Seeks Registry Explanation Over Disclosure of Victim’s Identity

Srinagar:// The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has sought an explanation from its Registry after the identity of a victim/complainant was disclosed in a petition entertained by the Court.

Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that, since the petitioner had disclosed the name of the victim/complainant, it became necessary to seek an explanation from the Registry as to how the petition had been entertained despite repeated directions and circulars issued from time to time regarding such disclosures.

The Court made the observation while dismissing the petition as withdrawn after counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it.

The High Court’s direction highlights the need for strict adherence to judicial directions concerning the confidentiality and protection of the identity of victims, particularly in sensitive criminal matters.

Justice Shahzad Azeem has directed the Registry to explain how the petition was entertained despite the existing directions/circulars on the issue.

22/08/2026

Court Issues Pre-Cognizance Notice to Tehsildar Over Alleged Acts Against Practising Lawyer

Sopore:// The District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Sopore, has issued a pre-cognizance notice to Tehsildar Sopore Tariq Ahmad Sheikh on a complaint alleging offences under Sections 126, 131, 351 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The complaint has been filed by the Bar Association Sopore through its President, Advocate Faisal Jan Anim, along with Advocate Mohammad Waseem.

The court, presided over by Usman Khurshid, Judicial Officer, recorded the preliminary statements of the complainants and examined the material placed on record.

The complaint relates to an alleged incident of August 19, 2026, when Advocate Mohammad Waseem had reportedly visited the Tehsildar’s office in connection with a matter concerning directions issued by the Additional District & Sessions Court, Sopore. According to the complaint, the alleged incident occurred during the interaction at the Tehsildar’s office while the officer was dealing with the matter in his official capacity.

The court observed that, without expressing any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations or the legality of the conduct attributed to the proposed accused, the incident prima facie appeared to have a nexus with the discharge of his official functions.

Accordingly, the court held that the procedural safeguards under Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 were required to be complied with before consideration of cognizance.

The court directed that pre-cognizance notice be issued to Tehsildar Tariq Ahmad Sheikh, requiring his appearance on August 31, 2026, through the SHO, Police Station Sopore.

The court has also called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, being the superior officer of the proposed accused, regarding the facts and circumstances of the incident.

The matter has been listed for August 31 for service and appearance, pre-cognizance hearing of the proposed accused and consideration of the report sought from the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.

The court has made it clear that the issuance of notice is at the pre-cognizance stage and does not amount to a finding of guilt or an opinion on the merits of the allegations.

22/08/2026

CCPA Imposes ₹5 Lakh Penalty on Flipkart Over Non-BIS-Compliant Toys

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty on Flipkart for facilitating the sale of toys that did not comply with mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements.

The CCPA held that Flipkart could not claim to be a mere neutral intermediary, particularly as it used labels such as “Flipkart Assured”, “Best Seller”, “Trending” and “AD” to promote products.

The Authority observed that such labels could give consumers an impression that products had been verified for safety and quality.

The proceedings followed a suo motu inquiry into the sale of toys allegedly violating the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020. The CCPA found that non-BIS-compliant toys continued to remain listed on the platform despite Flipkart having knowledge of the violations.

Flipkart was also directed to ensure that no non-compliant toys are listed, advertised or offered for sale, prominently display its contact and grievance-officer details, and submit a compliance report within 15 days.

22/08/2026

Supreme Court reduces law practice criterion to become civil judge from 3 years to 1 year but adds clerkship and training criteria

Candidates who succeed will have to undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by 6 months’ clerkship under a District Judge and 6 months under a High Court judge.

22/08/2026

Jammu Court Convicts Man in ₹4 Lakh Cheque Dishonour Case; Awards One-Year Jail

Jammu, August 21: A Sub-Judge/Special Railway Magistrate Court in Jammu has convicted a man in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment.

The court, presided over by Sandeep Singh Sen, KCS (Judicial), Sub-Judge/Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu, also imposed a fine of ₹4 lakh along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the cheque till the date of conviction. The entire fine amount has been directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a Jammu-based wholesale trading firm through its partner. According to the complaint, the accused had purchased oil from the firm and issued a cheque of ₹4 lakh, which was subsequently dishonoured.

The cheque was initially dishonoured for insufficient funds and was later returned unpaid on presentation with the remark “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” The complainant thereafter issued a statutory demand notice seeking payment of the cheque amount, but the amount remained unpaid.

During the trial, the accused denied having purchased the oil or issuing the cheque, claiming that his signed cheque book had been lost or stolen and that the cheque had been misused. He also questioned the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant firm was not registered.

The court, however, rejected the defence after examining the evidence of the complainant, his witnesses, Chartered Accountant, Commercial Tax Officer and the bank official produced by the defence.

A significant circumstance noted by the court was that the cheque had been dishonoured on earlier occasions, including for insufficient funds, before the accused claimed that his cheque book had been lost. The court held that this circumstance weakened the defence that the cheque had been stolen subsequently.

The court further observed that once the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came into operation in favour of the holder. The burden thereafter shifted upon the accused to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence.

Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in decisions including Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian and C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, the court held that mere denial was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

The court also rejected the contention regarding the complainant firm being unregistered, observing that the registration issue did not defeat the criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

After considering the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the complainant had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumptions even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Accordingly, the accused was held guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

While determining the sentence, the court noted that proceedings under the cheque dishonour law have a strong compensatory and restitutive objective. Considering that the case was more than a decade old, the court imposed one year’s simple imprisonment, along with the fine and interest.

The court further directed that in the event of default in payment of the fine, the convict would undergo an additional six months’ simple imprisonment.

The accused was taken into custody and directed to be sent to the District Jail for serving the sentence. The court also informed him of his statutory right to prefer an appeal.

Kanoon Ki Dastak

24/08/2026

23/08/2026

23/08/2026

23/08/2026

23/08/2026

22/08/2026

22/08/2026

22/08/2026

22/08/2026

22/08/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request