Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Stays Proceedings Against 'Article 370' Director Aditya Dhar In Defamation Complaint
While hearing the petition challenging an order by the Forest Magistrate, it was observed that the lower court had failed to follow proper legal procedure under the BNSS, 2023.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has stayed the proceedings in a complaint filed against filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others regarding the depiction of an individual in the film Article 370.
The Court noted that pre-cognizance summons were issued without recording the mandatory sworn statements of the complainant or witnesses, prompting a stay on the matter until the next date of hearing.
The Bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi ordered, “In the meantime, subject to objections of other side and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the proceedings in the complaint filed by respondent, shall stay.”
Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadri appeared for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
A petition was filed by Producer/Director Aditya Dhar under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarak Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS, 2023, thereby challenging the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant along with the order passed by the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar.
It was the case of the respondent that the petitioners in one of the feature films directed/co-produced by them, namely Article 370, have used a photograph, allegedly that of the respondent, and depicted him as a terrorist in the context of the plot of the feature film, as a consequence thereof, harm has been caused to the reputation of the respondent. It is stated that the respondent has proceeded to file a complaint before the Magistrate, apparently in terms of Section 210, seeking to initiate prosecution against the petitioners.
The Magistrate proceeded to issue pre-cognizance summons in respect to the offence punishable under Section 356 of BNS, 2023, hence the present petition was filed.
Contention of the Parties
Counsel representing Dhar submitted that the Magistrate has not proceeded in accordance with the law occupying the field and referred to Sub Section 1 of Section 223 of BNSS. He further stated that the Magistrate is under an obligation to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, and the substance of such examination has to be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses and also by the Magistrate.
He stated that in terms of provisions of Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, copies of the complaint, sworn statement and other relevant material were also to be provided to the petitioners, so that they could defend their case before the Magistrate; however, no such material has been provided to the petitioners.
Observations
“Record was called from the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, its perusal would reveal that the Court has not proceeded in accordance with law. The pre-cognizance notice has been issued to the petitioners on 30.12.2025, they have been directed to appear on 07.02.2026, but there is nothing on record to show that the statement of the complainant or those of the witnesses have been recorded”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the Respondent and listed the matter for a further date.
Cause Title: Aditya Dhar and Ors. v. Ghulam Mohammad Shah [CrlM No. 72/2026 in CRM(M) No. 36/2026]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadri, Advocates Farman Ali Magrey, Parag Khandhar, Ibrahim Alam, Chandrima Mitra and Sikander Hayat Khan.