STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Delivering a major relief to Jammu & Kashmir Cabinet Minister, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Jammu has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, which had directed the SHO Police Station Khour to proceed against him in a complaint alleging involvement in drug-related intimidation.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while issuing notice to the complainant Suresh Sharma, observed that the matter involved serious questions of law and civil consequences, and therefore required judicial indulgence. “Prima facie, a case for interference is made out,” the Court observed while granting interim relief. The respondent has been asked to file a reply within four weeks, and the case is now listed for December 3, 2025.
The controversy stems from an order dated July 19, 2025, passed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, whereby the trial Magistrate had directed the police to register and investigate a complaint against the Minister. This was despite the police report from SHO Khour clearly stating that no role of the petitioner was established in the alleged incident.
In his petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, Satish Sharma, Cabinet Minister described the trial court’s order as “illegal, arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in law.” He argued that the Magistrate had acted mechanically, without applying judicial mind, and had failed to comply with Section 175(4) BNSS, which mandates providing an opportunity of hearing before passing such orders.
The Minister, aged 54, a seasoned legislator from Jammu and currently holding the Youth Services and Sports portfolio in the Union Territory administration, has in recent years spearheaded an aggressive campaign against the growing menace of drug addiction among youth. According to him, this public stance has made him an “eyesore” for drug networks and their sympathisers, who now seek to malign his reputation through fabricated complaints.
He alleged that the complainant, Suresh Sharma of Khour, twisted the facts of a public rally held on October 26, 2024, to falsely insinuate that the Minister had publicly named him as a drug dealer. In fact, the Minister’s petition underlines that even the complainant himself admitted that it was “some other person” and not Satish Sharma who uttered his name in that rally. Despite this, the Magistrate referred to vague claims about a pen drive and social media handles while directing an investigation. “The order is thus non-speaking, unreasoned, and contrary to law,” the petition submits.
The petition further cites the settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) that courts can quash proceedings if the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence. It also references Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), wherein the apex court held that applications seeking registration of FIRs must be scrutinised with strict compliance and application of mind.
The Minister’s counsel argued that continuation of such proceedings would amount to harassment and irreparable injury to his reputation as a public servant. They also pointed out that the complainant has himself faced multiple FIRs in the past, including under the NDPS Act, thereby demonstrating his lack of bona fides. Significantly, even two months after the Magistrate’s order, the complainant had failed to hand over the alleged video recording or “pen drive evidence” to the police, reinforcing his malafide intentions.
The High Court found merit in these submissions and stayed the operation of the Magistrate’s order. Legal experts note that by invoking Section 175(4) BNSS, the Court has highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards before directing coercive action that could damage an individual’s civil and political standing.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Sharma, assisted by Advocates Sanpreet Singh, Sachin Dev Singh, Sunil Sharma, Manjit Singh Sarkaria, Jattan Singh Gill, and Aman Sharma. The respondent is yet to file his formal response before the High Court.
The development has stirred political waters in Jammu. Supporters of the Minister claim the ruling vindicates his fight against drug abuse and shields him from politically motivated vendetta. On the other hand, detractors argue that the allegations should not be dismissed without investigation, given their sensitive nature.
With the matter now posted for December 3, 2025, the case is expected to draw wider attention, not just in legal circles but also in the political landscape of Jammu & Kashmir, where the fight against drugs has become both a social and electoral issue.