Back
J&K and Ladakh High Court Questions Bias in Probe, Refuses to Quash FIR
In a significant ruling, the has declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the , while expressing serious concerns over the manner in which the investigation was being conducted. The Court directed the and the of Doda to personally supervise the investigation to ensure fairness.
A Tale of Two FIRs and a Month-Long Delay
The case stems from an altercation that occurred on , between the petitioners—Abdul Gani and five others—and the complainant party. According to the petitioners, they had immediately lodged an FIR (No.19/2025) on the same day against members of the complainant’s family for assault. The complainant, however, waited over a month before approaching the on , leading to the registration of the impugned FIR under .
The petitioners sought quashing of this later FIR, arguing it was a “” to their own complaint and an . They alleged that the allegations were baseless and intended solely to harass them.
The “Alarming” State of the Investigation
What caught the Court’s attention was not the petitioners’ arguments but the status report filed by the police. Filed nearly a year after the FIR was registered, the report revealed a deeply unsatisfactory investigation. The investigating officer (IO)—a Deputy Superintendent of Police—had recorded statements from eyewitnesses who corroborated the complainant’s version. However, the IO also recorded statements from 17 “independent witnesses,” including some from the Scheduled Tribe community, who allegedly did not support the complainant.
More troublingly, the IO noted that statements from 8 signatories to the original complaint indicated they were unaware of the SC/ST allegations, and 15 other witnesses were still to be examined. The Court viewed this as a deliberate attempt to delay and derail the probe.
Quality Over Quantity: A Core Legal Principle
Justice M.A. Chowdhary, presiding over the single-judge bench, made a crucial observation that will likely be cited in future cases:
“It appears from the status report that the investigating officer, who is considerably at a senior position, has some other ideas, so as to screen the alleged culprits, as otherwise, it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the and the statement of the witnesses, who may have been present at the place of occurrence…”
The Court emphasized that the IO should have focused on the credibility of the witnesses who were actually present and supported the complainant, rather than prolonging the probe by seeking additional witnesses. The extended delay, the Court noted, suggested partiality.
Protecting the Vulnerable: The Purpose of the
The High Court underscored that the complainant party belonged to a “vulnerable, weak and underprivileged class” for whose protection Parliament enacted the . Any in the investigation could undermine the very purpose of the law.
Dismissing the petitioners’ argument that the delay in filing the FIR should lead to its quashing, the Court reasoned that the complainant had first approached the local police station but was unable to get the FIR registered, compelling him to escalate to the SSP. “Therefore, the delay if any cannot be attributable to the complainant, so as to give any benefit to the accused for seeking quashing of the FIR on this ground,” Justice Chowdhary held.
Cross FIRs Strengthen, Not Weaken, the Case
The petitioners had also argued that the existence of their earlier FIR (No.19/2025) undermined the complainant’s case. The Court turned this argument on its head, observing that arising from the same incident actually confirm that an occurrence did take place. “On this count, as well, no ground made out to seek of FIR,” the judgment stated.
Directing a Fair Probe
While refusing to quash the FIR, the Court took the unusual step of ordering top-level supervision to ensure a . Justice Chowdhary directed:
“ and are directed to supervise the investigation of the case and to ensure that investigation is carried out, in accordance with law. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the and also to learned for compliance.”
Conclusion: A Dismissal with a Watchful Eye
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. However, the Court’s critical observations and supervisory directions send a clear message: the judiciary will not tolerate biased or lackadaisical investigations in cases concerning marginalized communities. The ruling reaffirms that the quality of evidence—not the quantity of witnesses—is the true of a under the .
