Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan - Petitioner
Versus
UT of JK and Others - Respondents
CRM (M) No. 111 of 2023 c/w WP (C) No. 592 of 2023
Decided On : 18-09-2023
The court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It also referred to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP regarding the registration of FIRs. The court analyzed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), including section 154 (registration of FIR), section 156 (investigation by police), and section 482 (inherent powers of the High Court). The court also cited the judgments of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, which provide guidance on the exercise of inherent powers and the circumstances in which FIRs can be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, alleges custodial torture and amputation of his body parts by fellow police personnel. He filed a petition seeking registration of FIR and transfer of investigation to CBI. The respondents opposed the reliefs sought, stating that the petitioner caused self-harm and is involved in multiple narcotic cases. The court directed an in-depth inquiry into the allegations of custodial torture and registration of FIR if an offence is made out. The court held that the investigation is at an early stage and should be allowed to proceed.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the scope of inherent power under section 482 Cr.PC and the principles for quashing FIRs. It held that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless the allegations do not disclose any offence or the prosecution is barred by law. The court also emphasized that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The court rejected the petitioner's request to quash the FIR and allowed the investigation to continue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and the investigation should be allowed to proceed. The court emphasized that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence or the prosecution is barred by law.
Result: The court dismissed the petition and allowed the investigation to continue.
JUDGMENT :
1. The controversy involved in the instant petitions is inter-connected to each other, having been clubbed together pursuant to order dated 29.3.2023, and, as such, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
WP (C) 592/2023
2. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following reliefs:
(b) Respondent No. 2 be directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a gazetted officer and assisted by two senior officers for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, so that interests of justice are met.
(c) In case this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in view of gravity of offences committed as well as the influence that can be exerted by accused persons being police officials, the matter may please be referred to CBI for investigation so that fair and uninfluenced investigation takes place in the matter, in the interests of justice.
3. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs are being prayed as stated in the petition are that the petitioner, a police constable, while being posted in District Police Lines, Baramulla was called upon to present himself in the office of respondent 3 herein on 20.2.2023 in pursuance of a signal sent by the office of Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara (respondent 5) to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baramulla in connection with an inquiry relating to a narcotic case.
It is being stated that the petitioner left his place of posting at 11:45 AM on 20.2.2023 after entering his departure in the daily diary maintained for the said purpose and upon reaching the destination, the petitioner came to be subjected to heinous and brutal torture in the JIC Kupwara for six days regularly besides mutilating/amputating his body/private parts, and thereafter in a half dead state was shifted to the District Hospital Kupwara and subsequently to SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar in a serious condition accompanied by a Sub-Inspector namely Ashiq Hussain, Belt no. 289/PAU, where the petitioner got admitted for treatment and was advised an immediate surgery owing to the amputation of his private body part having been brought in a polythene bag by the accompanying sub-inspector.
It is being next stated by the petitioner that while being admitted in SKIMS Soura his wife approached respondent 4 for registration of FIR owing to custodial torture and amputation of his body parts, against the accused police personnel and on his failure to register the same, the petitioner's wife approached the respondent 3 who too did not take any action in the matter resulting into serving of a legal notice by the petitioner's wife upon the respondents 2 to 4 through her advocate.
4. The petition is being maintained "inter alia" on the ground of violation of rights of the petitioner by the respondent herein guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as also of blatant breach of the directions issued by the Apex Court in case titled as “Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP and others” qua the registration of an FIR.
5. Upon coming up of this matter for consideration on 17.3.2023, the counsel for the respondents came to be directed by this court to inform the court about the status of the complaint claimed to have been lodged by the wife of the petitioner and on 18.3.2023 the said information came to be furnished suggesting that an FIR, being FIR No. 32/2023 regarding the incident had been registered on 25.2.2023, however, not on the complaint of the petitioner's wife. No information/response was furnished and conveyed by the counsel for the respondents with respect to the status of the complaint claimed to have been filed by the petitioner's wife. Accordingly, respondents 3 and 4 came to be directed to file the reply to the petition by or before 28.3.2023.
6. Response/status report has be
The court emphasized that the power to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the prosecution is barred by law. Th....
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's interference under Article 226 and the obligation of police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Q....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Point of law : Needless to point out that if the law provides a particular remedy to an accused, then it is always open for him to exhaust the same while approaching the concerned Court while filing ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
