Srinagar, Oct 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a Magistrate’s order directing the registration of an FIR against police personnel over allegations of an attempt to set a man’s premises ablaze and endanger his family, directing fresh consideration of the complaints in accordance with law.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, while deciding two connected petitions filed by Rohit Sharma and others and Khalid Ashraf and others, observed that the Magistrate’s order lacked adequate reasoning and did not reflect the judicial application of mind required before directing a police investigation.
The order, passed by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Reasi, on May 5, 2022, had directed the Station House Officer of Police Station Chasana to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complaints alleged that police personnel had attempted to kill the complainant and his family members by trying to set their premises on fire. The accused police personnel challenged the Magistrate’s direction, arguing that it had been issued without proper judicial consideration.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi. However, their revision petition was dismissed on July 4, 2022, as not maintainable on the ground that the Magistrate’s direction was interlocutory.
The High Court clarified that although a revision petition against an order directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was barred, its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be invoked where an order was alleged to have been passed without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory legal requirements.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that a Magistrate must examine whether a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and whether a police investigation is warranted. The reasons supporting such a decision must be evident from the order.
The Court noted that the Magistrate had merely recorded that the complainant had approached the concerned police station and the Senior Superintendent of Police before filing the complaints. The order did not adequately examine the allegations or explain the need for a police investigation.
Justice Kazmi also observed that complaints against police personnel concerning alleged acts committed in the discharge of official duties required particular care. The judgment noted that the trial court could have examined the competing version that the police personnel had visited the premises to execute an arrest.
The High Court clarified that its decision concerned only the legality of the Magistrate’s order and did not establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations against either side.
It also rejected the suggestion that the complainant’s alleged criminal antecedents could independently justify quashing the complaints, observing that a person’s criminal record does not, by itself, prevent the filing of a complaint or establish that no cognizable offence has occurred.
The Court accordingly set aside the May 5, 2022 order and directed that any investigation or proceedings initiated solely on the basis of that order should not continue.
The complaints have been restored to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions to pass fresh orders preferably within 15 days of receiving the High Court’s order. The complainant has been asked to appear before the Magistrate, either personally or through counsel, on October 23, 2026.
The ruling leaves the allegations open for consideration and does not amount to a final determination of the merits of the complaints.
