Srinagar, Aug 13 (JKNS): The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has come down heavily on the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shopian, holding that the Magistrate had exceeded the jurisdictional bounds of his authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure and setting aside the show-cause notice issued to the District Collector, Shopian.
As per news agency JKNS, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has set aside a show-cause notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shopian, to the District Collector, Shopian, observing that the Magistrate had exceeded the jurisdictional bounds of his authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The ruling was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in Shishir Gupta, IAS, presently posted as District Collector, Shopian v. Ufaira Gulzar & Ors., WP(C) No. 1781/2026, CM No. 4750/2026, vide order dated August 7, 2026.
The matter arose from proceedings concerning recovery of maintenance awarded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shopian. The Magistrate, vide order dated December 4, 2025, had awarded monthly maintenance of ₹18,000, comprising ₹10,000 in favour of respondent No. 1 and ₹8,000 in favour of respondent No. 2, with the award made effective from April 20, 2023, the date of institution of the proceedings.
Following default in payment of the recurring as well as arrears of maintenance, an execution application was filed before the Judicial Magistrate on December 9, 2025. During the execution proceedings, the Magistrate, on February 20, 2026, issued a levy warrant to the District Collector, Shopian, under Section 421(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue.
Pursuant to the levy warrant, the revenue authorities took steps in the matter and the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Shopian, furnished a report identifying immovable property of the concerned respondent. Despite the response furnished by the revenue authorities, the proceedings continued before the Judicial Magistrate, who subsequently sought the personal appearance of the District Collector and issued a show-cause notice dated July 10, 2026. Aggrieved by the action, the District Collector approached the High Court, challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the proceedings initiated against him.
The challenge, among other grounds, questioned the Magistrate’s authority to issue such a show-cause notice and seek the personal appearance of the District Collector after a levy warrant had already been issued to the Collector for recovery through the statutory land-revenue mechanism.
The petitioner also relied upon judgments concerning the exercise of contempt jurisdiction and contended that the Judicial Magistrate could not assume jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act in the manner adopted.
After examining the original record summoned from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shopian, the High Court found serious infirmities in the subsequent course adopted by the Magistrate. The Court noted that once the levy warrant had already been issued to the District Collector under Section 421(1)(b) CrPC, the recovery was required to proceed through the mechanism prescribed for recovery of arrears of land revenue.
The High Court particularly took exception to the subsequent action of the Judicial Magistrate in issuing another levy warrant against the concerned respondent through the SHO, Police Station Shopian, after the earlier levy warrant had already been addressed to the Collector. The Court held that there was no scope under the Code of Criminal Procedure for adopting such a course and observed that the subsequent action had effectively frustrated the earlier levy warrant issued to the Collector.
In strong observations, the High Court held that the Judicial Magistrate had “exceeded the jurisdictional bounds of its authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” The Court further observed that, in adopting the subsequent course of action, the Judicial Magistrate was “acting in ignorance of law.”
The High Court consequently held the show-cause notice dated July 10, 2026 to be illegal and set it aside. The Court instead directed the Judicial Magistrate to issue a fresh levy warrant addressed to the Collector, Shopian, for execution through the prescribed land-revenue recovery mechanism, including attachment and sale of the identified property, with the recovered proceeds to be placed at the disposal of the Judicial Magistrate for payment to the maintenance recipients.
The judgment thus reiterates the statutory distinction between the role of the Judicial Magistrate in relation to an order of maintenance and the role of the Collector once a levy warrant under Section 421(1)(b) CrPC has been issued for recovery as arrears of land revenue. The High Court’s order makes it clear that, once such recovery has been entrusted to the Collector through the statutory mechanism, it has to proceed in accordance with the applicable land-revenue recovery procedure.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition and set aside the impugned show-cause notice issued to the District Collector, Shopian. (JKNS)
