HC sets aside Magistrate’s order directing FIR against police personnel

Srinagar, Oct 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a Magistrate’s order directing registration of an FIR against police personnel in two complaints alleging an attempt to kill a man and his family by setting their premises ablaze, holding that the order failed to demonstrate the judicial application of mind required before directing a police investigation.
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 did not discuss the allegations, refer to any prima facie material or explain why a police investigation was necessary, particularly when the complaints were directed against police personnel.
The judgment, pronounced, set aside the order passed by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Reasi, on May 5, 2022, directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Chasana to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The complainant had filed two private complaints alleging that the police personnel attempted to kill him and his family members by trying to set their premises ablaze. The police personnel challenged the Magistrate’s direction, contending, among other grounds, that the order had been passed without proper application of judicial mind.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, whose order dated July 4, 2022, rejected their revision petition as not maintainable on the ground that the Magistrate’s direction was interlocutory.
The High Court held that although a revision against an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was barred, the petitioners could invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where an order was alleged to have been passed without jurisdiction or in disregard of mandatory legal requirements.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments governing the exercise of powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, the High Court reiterated that directing an investigation is a judicial act requiring the Magistrate to consider whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and whether a police investigation is warranted. The reasons reflecting such consideration must be apparent from the order.
The Court observed that the impugned order merely recorded that the complainant had approached the concerned police station and the Senior Superintendent of Police before moving the court. It did not demonstrate the required consideration of the allegations or explain why an investigation was necessary.
The judge further observed that complaints against police personnel concerning acts allegedly committed in the course of their official duties called for particular care and caution. An examination of the matter by the trial court, the judgment noted, could have provided an opportunity to consider the competing version that the police personnel had visited the premises to execute an arrest.
However, the High Court made it clear that its decision was confined to the legality of the Magistrate’s order and did not determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by either side.
The Court also declined to treat the complainant’s alleged criminal antecedents as an independent ground for quashing the complaints, observing that a person’s criminal record does not, by itself, bar the filing of a complaint or establish that no cognizable offence has been disclosed.
While disposing of the petitions, the High Court directed that the Magistrate’s order dated May 5, 2022, be set aside and that any investigation or proceedings consequent upon it should not proceed on the strength of that order.
The complaints have been restored to the Magistrate’s file for reconsideration in accordance with law, with a direction to pass fresh orders, preferably within 15 days of receipt of the High Court’s order. The complainant was directed to appear before the Magistrate, either personally or through counsel, on October 23, 2026.
The judgment, therefore, leaves the complaints open for fresh consideration and does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations against the police personnel. [KNT]