Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pawan Kumar @ Raja vs Union Territory Of J&K on 22 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU.
(Through Virtual Mode)
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
CrlM Nos. 577/2026, 758/2022
Reserved on: 24.04.2026
Pronounced on: 22.05.02026.
Uploaded on: 22 05.2026.
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full.
Pawan Kumar @ Raja ...Petitioner(s)
S/O Sh. Kuldeep Kumar.
R/O P/P/ Market, Purana Dhurdh
Tehsil Katra, District, Reasi.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shubam Sharma, Advocate.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K, th.
SHO P/S Katra, Reasi.
2. Miss X
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.116 of 2022 dated
23.04.2022, registered with Police Station Katra against the petitioner
for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 read
with Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is stated that in the year 2011, a couple, named, Mr. Y and Mrs. Z,
residents of Panjar, District Udhampur, migrated to Katra along with
their minor children to seek employment as laborers due to extreme
1
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
penury. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Shani Devi, provided
them with shelter, in consideration for which Mrs. Z performed various
household chores assigned to her. Tragically, Mrs. Z passed away in the
year 2014 during the delivery of her fifth child, and her husband, Mr. Y,
subsequently expired in the year 2018. The deceased couple was
survived by five children, four daughters, including Respondent No.2
herein, and one son, none of whose relatives came forward to either
adopt or care for them.
3. It is further stated that following the demise of their mother, the
children’s father, Mr. Y, would occasionally take them to Panjar in
District Udhampur, where he owned a parcel of land. In February 2021,
two daughters of the deceased couple, including respondent No.2, left
Katra under the pretext of ascertaining whether their paternal cousins
were disposing of a portion of their family land. En route, they
encountered their step-maternal grandfather, Balak Ram, who offered to
escort them to their paternal uncle’s house. Consequently, both girls,
including respondent No.2, stayed at the residence of Balak Ram for
approximately 15 to 20 days.
4. According to the account of the other sister, Balak Ram, while in a state
of heavy intoxication, one night attempted to outrage her modesty by
untying the drawstring of her salwar. She woke up, managed to flee,
and returned to Katra the following morning. While she implored
Respondent No.2 to return to Katra with her, Respondent No. 2 chose to
remain with Balak Ram.
5. Respondent No.2 continued to reside with Balak Ram until February
2
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
2022, during which period she reportedly gave birth to a female infant.
Upon learning of the birth, her paternal cousin, Shailu Ram,
immediately reported the matter to Police Station Panchari, alleging that
Balak Ram had raped respondent No.2, caused her pregnancy, and
subsequently orchestrated the delivery of the child in the forest. A copy
of this complaint has been placed on record by the petitioner as
Annexure-2.
6. The petitioner further contends that although the concerned police
authorities summoned Balak Ram for questioning, he wielded his
influence to shift the blame onto the petitioner. On April 23, 2022,
Balak Ram brought respondent No.2 to Police Station Katra and lodged
a complaint written in Urdu. It was therein alleged that the petitioner
had raped respondent No.2 and threatened her with death should she
reveal his identity, thereby compelling her to flee through fear to her
grandfather’s home in Panjar, where she delivered a female child a
month prior. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1, without
scrutinizing the genuineness of this highly motivated complaint
orchestrated by Balak Ram through respondent No.2, mechanically
registered the impugned FIR.
7. The petitioner urges that had respondent No.2 been subjected to the
repeated sexual assaults as alleged, she would not have failed to raise
any alarm over such a protracted period, during which she conceived
and delivered a female child. He further asserts that, in truth, respondent
No.2 was subjected to rape by Balak Ram during her stay at Lower
Saddal. It is contended that a comparative DNA analysis involving
3
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
Balak Ram would conclusively bring the true facts to light. The
petitioner submits that Balak Ram, anticipating his imminent arrest for
the crime, actively engineered and maneuvered the presentation of
respondent No.2 to falsely implicate the petitioner in the alleged
offense.
8. Respondent No.1 has filed two status reports, the latest being dated May
6, 2024. Therein, it is stated that the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional
Special Mobile Magistrate, Reasi. The Investigating Officer also
subjected the victim to an age determination examination at the
Government Hospital, Sarwal, Jammu, where the Medical Board opined
her age to be between 15 and 17 years at the time of examination. It is
further stated that on July 12, 2022, the infant passed away due to
dehydration at SMGS Hospital, Jammu. Subsequently, on July 15,
2022, DNA extraction of the deceased female infant was conducted at
GMC, Jammu. Two exhibits were prepared, marked as Exhibit ‘A’
(containing the humerus bone) and Exhibit ‘B’ (containing hair samples
with roots), which were sealed by the Medical Officer in the presence of
the Naib-Tehsildar, Katra, and forwarded to the FSL, Srinagar, for DNA
profiling and matching. Following the petitioner’s arrest on February
11, 2024, his blood sample was sent to FSL, Srinagar, for comparison
with the preserved DNA of the deceased infant. In the said status report,
the prosecution sought permission to present the charge sheet, which
has since been filed before the trial court pursuant to the order dated
May 8, 2024, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
4
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that since
the charge sheet explicitly states that the DNA profile of the petitioner
excludes him as the biological father of the deceased infant, the
substratum of the prosecutrix’s case stands demolished by scientific
evidence. It is further submitted that the actual perpetrator of the offense
was Balak Ram, who subjected respondent No.2 to sexual assault and
fathered the child. He underscores that despite an explicit complaint
preferred by Shailu Ram before the authorities at Police Station
Panchari, the police remained completely unmoved and failed to take
any action against the said Balak Ram.
10.Per-contra, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for respondent No.1, has contended that although the DNA
profile report excludes the petitioner as the biological father, it cannot
operate to nullify the statutory deposition of the prosecutrix recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Learned G.A. submits that the ocular
testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands on its own footing, and
the impugned FIR cannot be quashed solely on the anvil of scientific
evidence.
11.Heard and perused the record.
12. This Court has carefully perused the charge sheet placed on record. The
victim (Respondent No.2) stated that the petitioner committed rape upon
her, resulting in her pregnancy. She further deposed that she informed
the petitioner’s mother about the incident; however, the mother ignored
her claims and expelled her from the house, forcing her to seek refuge at
her maternal grandfather’s (Nana) home. Notably, in the charge sheet
5
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
itself, the Investigating Officer has recorded that the DNA profile report
excludes the petitioner as the biological father of the child (now
deceased).
13.This Court cannot but express its astonishment at the slipshod manner in
which the investigation was pursued. Despite conclusive scientific
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner could not have fathered the
child, the Investigating Officer failed entirely to take measures to
unearth the identity of the actual perpetrator. It behooved the
Investigating Officer to probe the matter further, so that the true
paternity of the female child might be established.
14.Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a minor who has been subjected to
sexual assault, resulting in pregnancy and subsequent birth of a female
child. Since it has been established that the petitioner did not father the
child, the identity of the individual responsible for sexually exploiting
respondent No.2, and causing her pregnancy, remains altogether
shrouded in mystery. It is evident that the Investigating Officer filed the
charge sheet with undue haste, seemingly for the sole purpose of
precluding the petitioner from obtaining default bail.
15.Be that as it may, the exceptional nature of this case precludes this
Court from remaining a passive onlooker to the flawed manner of the
investigation. If this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction to remedy
this failure, the true culprit will escape unpunished and successfully
elude the process of law. In Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2023) 1 SCC 48, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“45. For what has been noticed hereinbefore, we could reasonably cull
out the principles for application to the present case as follows:
45.1. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to
ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and6
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
just investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and
inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that
the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and the
innocents are not arraigned to stand trial.
45.2. The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in
terms of Section 156CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include
the power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8)CrPC
after receiving the report of investigation. Whether further investigation
should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate,
which is to be exercised on the facts of each case and in accordance with
law.
45.3. Even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a
case where a charge-sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and
is to be exercised subject to the limitations of Section 173(8)CrPC, in
an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the
investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice
where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under
Section 482CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or
even reinvestigation. The provisions of Section 173(8)CrPC do not
limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under
Section 482CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the
High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the
ends of justice.
45.4. Even when the wide powers of the High Court in terms of
Section 482CrPC are recognised for ordering further investigation or
reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and in exceptional cases.
45.5. The powers under Section 482CrPC are not unlimited or
untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial
justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue
directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other
authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the
State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what
provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further
investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to
investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such
inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot
specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or
reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted.
(emphasis added)
16.The petitioner has been already enlarged on bail and the Coordinate
Bench of this court, while permitting the IO to file chargesheet, has
restrained the court from taking cognizance till further orders, in terms
of order dated 08.05.2024. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court deems it proper to direct Inspector General of
Police, Jammu, to constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT), to be
headed by the Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police
within a period of seven days from receipt of the order to further
7
CRM (M) No. 368/2022
investigate the matter, so as to unearth the identity of the true
perpetrator responsible for sexually exploiting the helpless minor
victim.
17.The learned Sessions Judge, Reasi is directed to return the charge-sheet
to SHO, Police Station, Katra for further investigation in terms of
above-mentioned directions. However, the prayer made by the petitioner
for quashing the FIR is declined at this stage.
18.The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
19.The IGP shall file status report with regard to the compliance of the
directions issued by this Court as mentioned above by 29th June, 2026.
20.Let Registry to maintain an index which shall come on 29th June, 2026.
21.Copy of this order be forwarded to IGP Jammu; SHO, P/S Katra; and
Learned Sessions Judge, Reasi, for compliance.
22.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
22.05.2026.
“Ab. Rashid”
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie 8 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM (M) No. 368/2022 :22.05.2026 14:14
