Source: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh 

Why in News? 

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the matter of Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors. v. UT of J&K held that once it is clearly evident from the allegations in the complaint that the accused's act falls within the scope of General Exceptions, there is no necessity to wait for the accused to submit proof to bring his case under the ambit of such Exceptions. 

What was the Background of Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors. v. UT of J&K (2025) Case? 

Background: 

• Respondent No.3 was running a trust named "Darul Arifa Hazrat Khadijatul Qubra (RA)" at Tasspora Gadool, Tehsil Kokernag, District Anantnag. 
• The trust was providing religious/technical education to poor orphan girls with hostel and mess facilities. 
• The trust was constructed on proprietary land and adjacent State land. 
• The adjacent State land was recorded in the trust's name under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act (ROSHNI Act) after paying Rs.70,000/-. 

Legal Development: 

• The ROSHNI Act was subsequently abrogated/declared unconstitutional. 
• The Division Bench of the High Court in S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K and others (PIL No.119/2011) passed directions regarding State land retrieval. 
• Revenue authorities began causing interference in the trust's property following the abrogation. 

Administrative Action: 

• Petitioner No.1 (Tehsildar, Kokernag) issued eviction notice dated 09.03.2022 to respondent No.3 asking him to remove encroachment. 
• On 11th March 2022, revenue officials visited the spot to retrieve State land and remove encroachment. 
• The trust's management resisted the eviction efforts. 
• Another notice dated 11th March 2022 was issued seeking explanation for obstruction of official duties. 
• Due to continued hindrance, another eviction notice dated 25th March 2022 was issued giving seven days to vacate. 

Complaint Filing: 

• Respondent No.3 filed application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vailoo. 
• The complaint alleged that on 11th March 2022 at 10:00 AM, petitioners forcibly entered trust premises without prior notice or lawful authority. 
• Allegations included harassment of female orphan students, forcibly throwing them out of kitchen/mess/dining hall, locking the facilities, and outraging modesty of female students. 
• Petitioners allegedly threatened students and employees with dire consequences 
• Complainant claimed police authorities took no action when the incident was reported. 

Magistrate's Order: 

• On 25th March 2022, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vailoo directed Officer Incharge, Police Station Kokernag to register FIR. 
• FIR No.55/2022 was registered for offences under Sections 447, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

Challenge in High Court: 

• Petitioners challenged both the Magistrate's order dated 25th March 2022 and consequential FIR No.55/2022. 
• Petitioners argued they were acting pursuant to court directions and discharging official functions. 
• The case reached the High Court through a Criminal Revision petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

On Procedural Requirements: 

• Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastava v. U.P. (2015) emphasized adherence to Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) jurisdiction. 
• Applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by affidavits and should clearly indicate prior to applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). 
• Magistrates should verify the truth and veracity of allegations in appropriate cases. 
• Complainant must approach SHO or SSP before filing Section 156(3) application. 

On Present Case Compliance: 

• The complainant vaguely stated in the complaint that police were approached but no action was taken. 
• No specific date or police authority mentioned in the complaint. 
• No documentary proof provided regarding delivery of complaint to police station or SSP. 
• Supporting affidavit also failed to mention compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) requirements. 
• Complainant failed to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements. 

On Legal Precedents: 

• Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022) held that prior application under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) is mandatory before filing Section 156(3) petition. 
• The recent Supreme Court decision in Ranjit Singh Bath v. U.T. of Chandigarh (2025) reinforced that Magistrate cannot direct FIR registration without adherence to Sections 154(1) and 154(3). 

On General Exceptions: 

• Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) provides that acts done pursuant to court judgment/order are not offences. 
• Petitioners were acting pursuant to Division Bench directions in S.K. Bhalla case. 
• Even from complainant's allegations, it was clear petitioners were acting under court's directions. 
• When facts clearly show the case falls under General Exceptions, no need to wait for accused's defense. 

On Nature of Allegations: 

• Allegations regarding outraging modesty and hurling abuses were vague and omnibus. 
• No specific particulars provided about victims or specific acts. 
• Such vague allegations cannot form basis for prosecution. 

On Abuse of Process: 

• Court found complainant filed FIR to obstruct officials from discharging lawful duties. 
• FIR appeared to be filed for wreaking vengeance and resisting eviction from State land. 
• Continuation of proceedings would discourage public officials from performing lawful duties. 
• Case represented abuse of legal process requiring intervention under Section 482 of CrPC.  

Final Determination: 

• Magistrate's order dated 25th March 2022 not sustainable in law due to procedural non-compliance. 
• FIR No.55/2022 also not sustainable in law. 
• Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice 
• Both the Magistrate's order and FIR were quashed along with all proceedings emanating therefrom.

What is Section 78 of the IPC? 

Introduction to General Exceptions under IPC: 

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860, recognizes that certain acts, which would otherwise constitute offences, may be justified or excused under specific circumstances. 
• Chapter IV of the IPC (Sections 76-106) deals with "General Exceptions" - these provisions serve as defenses that can exonerate a person from criminal liability even when their actions technically fall within the definition of an offence. 

Section 78 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: 

"Act done in pursuance of the judgment or order of Court" 

Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction. 

Key Elements of Section 78: 

• Act done in pursuance of judgment/order: 
  • The act must be performed to comply with or execute a court's judgment or order. 
  • There must be a direct causal link between the court's directive and the accused's action. 
• Court of Justice: 
  • Must be a properly constituted court with judicial powers. 
  • Includes all courts from Magistrate courts to Supreme Court. 
  • Administrative tribunals with judicial functions may also qualify. 
• Person bound by judgment/order 
  • The person performing the act must have a legal obligation to execute the court's directive. 
  • Typically includes court officers, police personnel, bailiffs, and other enforcement authorities. 
  • May extend to individuals specifically directed by the court. 
• Warranted by the judgment/order 
  • The act must fall within the scope and authority granted by the court's directive. 
  • Cannot exceed the boundaries of what the court has authorized. 

Scope and Application: 

Protection Regardless of Court's Jurisdiction: 

The section provides an important clarification: "if done by a person who is bound by such judgment or order to do it" - this protection exists even if the court lacked jurisdiction to pass the judgment or order. This ensures that: 

• Officers executing court orders are protected from criminal liability. 
• Good faith compliance with judicial directives is encouraged. 
• The burden of challenging jurisdictional issues lies with affected parties, not executing officers. 

Practical Applications: 

• Civil Process Execution: 
  • Attachment and sale of property by court officers. 
  • Eviction proceedings carried out by bailiffs. 
  • Recovery of debts through court-appointed receivers. 
• Criminal Process Execution: 
  • Arrests made pursuant to court warrants. 
  • Searches conducted under court orders. 
  • Seizure of property as directed by courts 

Contempt Proceedings: 

• Actions taken to enforce court orders. 
• Detention of persons for contempt of court. 

Limitations and Exceptions: 

Bona Fide Requirement: 

• The act must be done in good faith pursuant to the court order. 
• Malicious or excessive actions beyond the court's directive are not protected. 

Scope Limitation: 

• Protection only extends to acts specifically warranted by the court order. 
• Cannot justify actions beyond the court's authorization. 

Proper Court Requirement: 

• Must be a legitimate court with judicial authority. 
• Orders from administrative bodies without judicial powers may not qualify. 

Judicial Interpretation: 

Courts have consistently held that: 

• Liberal Interpretation: Section 78 should be liberally construed to protect officers executing court orders 
• Good Faith Standard: As long as the officer acts in good faith, minor errors in execution may be excused 
• Burden of Proof: Once it's established that an act was done pursuant to court order, the burden shifts to prove malice or excess of authority 

Corresponding Provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 

Section 16 of BNS, 2023 

"Act done in pursuance of judgment or order of Court" 

Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.