IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR, J.
UT OF J&K – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Ramzan Bhat & Another –Respondent
CRM(M) No.210 of 2022
Decided on : 26-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, J&K - Sections 156(3), 202 - Challenge to order directing registration of FIR and replacement of SIT head - Court held that a second FIR regarding the same incident is prohibited, but a counter FIR is permissible - The learned Magistrate's direction for a fresh FIR was set aside as he had already taken cognizance of the complaint and directed investigation under Section 202 - The investigation was to be expedited due to delays. (Paras 24, 25, 27)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized the importance of timely investigation and the need for accountability in the conduct of the SIT, expressing concern over the slow pace of the investigation. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing the registration of a fresh FIR regarding the death of Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, alleging police misconduct. The original FIR was registered in 1996, and the case was reopened in 2006 but faced delays in investigation. The protest petitioner claimed her husband was killed by police personnel. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint and thus could not direct the registration of a fresh FIR. The investigation needed to be expedited. (Paras 24, 27)
Issues: The main issues were whether a second FIR could be registered for the same incident and the legality of the Magistrate's order directing the registration of a fresh FIR. (Paras 14, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible, a counter FIR is allowed. The learned Magistrate's direction for a fresh FIR was not sustainable as he had already taken cognizance of the matter. (Paras 15, 24)
Result: The petition was disposed of with directions to expedite the investigation and replace the head of the SIT.
JUDGMENT :
1) The petitioner Union Territory of J&K, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 30.04.2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class(2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, whereby, inter-alia, direction has been issued for registration of FIR and Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, has been directed to replace S.P. North as head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) by some competent officer.
2) Before coming to the contentions raised in this petition, it would be apt to notice the background facts leading to the filing of this petition.
3) On 01.06.1996, Police Station, Khanyar, Srinagar, received a written information from SHO Police Station, Rainawari that on 31.05.1996 at about 2300 hours an information was received that some terrorists are hiding along with their illegal arms and ammunition at Miskeenbagh Khanyar. Upon this information the area was cordoned-off and during operation, terrorists resorted to indiscriminate firing upon the security forces and police with an intention to kill them. It was further reported that firing was retaliated, as a result of which two terrorists, namely, Mehraj-du-din and Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, Commander and Company Commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, were killed/injured. It was also reported that arms and ammunition were recovered from the spot. The other terrorists were reported to have fled away from the spot. On the basis of this docket, FIR No.88/1996 for offences under Section 307, 121-A RPC, 7/25 Arms Act and 4/5 Exp. Sub. Act was registered with Police Station, Khanyar and investigation was set into motion.
4) It seems that investigation was closed as untraced but on 05.05.2006, certain observations were made by the Zonal Police Headquarter, Srinagar, and the case was re-opened to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. After conducting investigation, the SIT submitted closure report before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, on 15.03.2021.
5) On 1st April, 2021, Jameela Bano, who happens to be the wife of deceased Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate. After recording statements of the protest petitioner, Smt. Jameela Bano, and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 28.10.2021, whereby SSP, Srinagar, was directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer not below the rank of Dy. SP, to investigate the case. It was further directed that role of the then Investigating Officer, SHO, P/S Rainawari and other officials in investigation of the case before its reopening in the year 2006 be also gone into. It was also directed that role of the SIT for delaying the investigation for about three years be also gone into. Finally, the SSP was directed to conclude investigation in a time bound manner, preferably within a period of six months.
6) It seems that while the investigation in terms of the directions dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate was going on, the protest petitioner made several applications before the learned Magistrate seeking status report of the investigation. The learned Magistrate passed a number of directions from time to time expressing his dismay over the pace of investigation and also sought personal appearance of the head of the SIT, SP North, Srinagar.
7) On 02.12.2021, the learned Magistrate, after perusing the status report filed by SSP, Srinagar, observed that it is not clear from the said report whether the identified persons, namely, Mir Hussain, then then SHO P/S Rainawari and Constables Noor-ud-Din, Ali Mohammad, Sub Inspector Mohammad Sabir, Azam Gujar and Abdul Majeed, have been arrested or whether any fresh FIR has been registered against them.
8) Ultimately, vide the impugned order, the learned Magistrate besides expressing his dissatisfaction about the pace and the manner of investigation that was being conducted under the guidance of SP, North, Srinagar, noted that the
A second FIR regarding the same incident is prohibited, but a counter FIR is permissible under law.
A magistrate can only direct the officer in charge of a police station to register an FIR; directions to superior officers exceed this authority.
The judgment establishes the principle that once cognizance of offences is taken, the trial Magistrate cannot direct registration of an FIR and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
A Magistrate can direct FIR registration even after commencing proceedings under section 202 Cr.P.C, clarifying the powers under sections 156(3) and 202.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.