Supreme Court of India
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan vs Union Of Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 21 July, 2025
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2025 INSC 876
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023)
KHURSHEED AHMAD CHOHAN ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF TERRITORY OF
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
& ORS. ETC. …..RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals by special leave, arise out
of the final judgment and order dated 18th September,
2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.21
17:54:19 IST
Reason:
1
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar1
in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023
connected with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2023,
whereby the High Court dismissed the said inter-
connected petitions, filed by the appellant (victim)
seeking registration of the FIR against the police
personnel; transfer of the investigation to Central
Bureau of Investigation2; and quashing of the FIR
filed against the appellant.
Background facts:-
4. The facts necessary for adjudication of the
present appeals, as evident from the records, are as
follows: –
4.1 The appellant is a police constable in the
Department of Police who, at the time of the alleged
incident, was posted at the District Police
Headquarters, Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir. On
17th February, 2023, the appellant received a signal
from Aijaz Ahmad Naiko, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, directing him
to report to the Office of the Senior Superintendent of1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI.’2
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
Police on 20th February, 2023, in connection with an
enquiry related to a narcotics matter. The appellant
alleges that no sooner he reached the Office of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, he was detained and
subjected to brutal custodial torture for six
consecutive days. His genital organs and testicles
were amputated. Pepper was sprinkled on his private
parts, and he was given electric shocks which led to
a fracture of his foot. The appellant, who suffered
grave injuries during the custodial torture, was
shifted to the District Hospital, Kupwara, in a
comatose condition. Due to his serious medical
condition, he was transferred first to the District
Hospital, Baramulla, and then to the Sher-i-Kashmir
Institute of Medical Sciences (‘SKIMS’), Soura-
Srinagar, on 26th February, 2023. At SKIMS, the
appellant, who was accompanied by Asiq Hussain,
Sub-Inspector, underwent surgery for the injury
caused by amputation of his testicles, which had
been brought to the hospital in a polythene bag by
the said Sub-Inspector. On the same day, i.e., 26th
February, 2023, an FIR3 was registered against the
3 FIR No. 32 of 2023.
3
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
appellant by Munner Ahmad, Sub-Inspector and In-
Charge, Police Post Tad, Karnah, for the offence
punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.4 The contents of the said FIR are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Dear Sir, Details of investigation are as
under. At this time S.I. Muneer Ahmad
108/KP presently posted as Officer Chowki
Police Taad presented himself before the
said Police Station with a written Docket in
order to register it the contents, which are
as under: From Chowki Police Taad Camp
JIC Kupwara Time 11.20 hrs. Dated
26.02.2023. To SHO Police Station
Kuwpara. Dear Sir, the brief Contents of the
case under FIR No.17 of the year 2023
under the offence 08/21-29 NDPS Act Police
Station Kamah are as under. Mr. Khursheed
Ahmad Chohan (sic) son of Late Ghulam
Mustafa Chohan (sic) resident of Abkote
Kamah at present Housing colony Ompora
Budgam who is an employee of the Police
department working as SG constable and is
presently posted at District Baramulla was
found involved in the said case under
discussion in the Police department and in
this connection, the said person was called
in JIC Kupwara for investigation. Today at
about 11: 15 noon, the said person was lying
in a bed in a residential Bark at JIC and
tried to suicide by cutting his vein with a
shogun blade while covering himself in a
blanket, and the said person was taken to
hospital in an injurious condition for
hospitalization with the help of other4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC.’
4
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
personal and Police staff present in the Bark
and in the said action, cognizance of the
police has been found. Hence through the
medium of said Docket it is requested that
the matter may be recorded in the Daily
Diary and action in the matter be taken. Sd/
in English of SI Muneer Ahmad 108/KP I/C
PP TAD CAMP JIC Kupwara.”[emphasis supplied]
4.2 Upon learning of the appellant’s condition, his
wife, Rubina Aktar, immediately approached Station
House Officer5, Police Station, Kupwara, requesting
the registration of an FIR against the police personnel
responsible for subjecting the appellant to brutal
custodial torture and inflicting life-threatening
injuries to him. However, no action was taken by the
SHO on the pleas of the lady. Aggrieved, she
approached Senior Superintendent of Police, District
Kupwara, who also refused to initiate any
proceedings against the erring police officials.
Consequently, the appellant’s wife, through her
Advocate, served a legal notice dated 2nd March, 2023
upon Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Circle
(Kupwara/Baramulla); Station House Officer, Police
Station, Kupwara; and Senior Superintendent of
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘SHO.’.
5
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
Police, District Kupwara, but failed to get any
response.
4.3 Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, the
appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 592 of 2023 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir seeking, inter alia,
(a) a direction to the SHO, Police Station, Kupwara,
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir to immediately
register an FIR based on the complaint and
supporting documents sent to him via registered
post; (b) a direction to Deputy Inspector General of
Police, North Circle (Kupwara/Baramulla) to
constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed
by a Gazetted Officer and assisted by two senior
officers to conduct a thorough investigation into the
matter, thereby ensuring that the interests of justice
are served; and (c) in the alternative, and if the
Hon’ble High Court deemed it appropriate, given the
gravity of the offences and the potential influence of
the accused police officials, a direction to refer the
matter to the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial
investigation. Parallelly, the appellant filed a
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being CRM (M) No.
6
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
111 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19736, seeking quashing of FIR
No. 32 of 2023 dated 26th February, 2023 filed
against the appellant, on the ground that the
allegations made in the FIR were inherently
improbable, mala fide, and an abuse of the process
of law. It was contended that the FIR had been lodged
with an ulterior motive to harass the appellant and
settle personal scores. The appellant also submitted
that even if the allegations were taken at face value,
they did not disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence.
4.4 The High Court vide order dated 18th
September, 2023, disposed of both petitions vide a
common judgment. In the writ petition seeking
registration of the FIR, the Court directed that a
detailed preliminary enquiry be conducted by the
Senior Superintendent of Police into the allegations.
If the said enquiry substantiated the claims, an FIR
was to be registered, and the investigation was to be
entrusted to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. In
the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing
6 For short, “CrPC”.
7
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
of the FIR, the High Court held that at this early
stage, it would not be appropriate to quash the FIR,
as the investigation was in its infancy and should be
allowed to proceed to ascertain the truth.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the quashing
petition and allowed the investigation in FIR No. 32
of 2023 to continue unhindered.
4.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High
Court, the appellant has filed the present appeals by
way of special leave before this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: –
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently and fervently submitted that
the present matter concerns a deeply disturbing case
of brutal custodial torture inflicted on a police
constable, who was kept in illegal detention and later
falsely implicated through a fabricated FIR in an
attempt to shield the real perpetrators of the crime.
Despite compelling medical evidence, multiple
representations, and the egregious nature of the
allegations, the High Court fell into grave error by
refusing to direct the registration of an FIR or to
8
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
ensure supervised independent investigation. In this
regard, he has advanced the following submissions to
urge:
5.1 The present case involves grave allegations of
custodial torture which the perpetrators tried to
cover up as a suicide attempt by the appellant. A
close examination of the timeline and the nature of
injuries suffered by the appellant cast serious doubt
on the respondent’s narrative. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the appellant was summoned
on 17th February, 2023 and remained in custody from
20th to 26th February, 2023. However, FIR No. 17 of
2023, under which the appellant was purportedly
summoned, was registered only on 23rd February,
2023, three days after his detention had commenced.
This temporal gap renders the appellant’s detention
from 20th to 22nd February, 2023 prima facie illegal
ab-initio, as it was not backed by any lawful
authority. Learned counsel further urged that the
medical report from SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar
categorically records grievous injuries that are
incompatible with any form of self-inflicted harm to
support the suicide theory, including a 10 cm x 5 cm
laceration on the scrotum with both testicles
9
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
surgically removed, bruises on the buttocks
extending to the thighs, tenderness on the palms and
soles indicative of blunt trauma, the presence of
vegetative particles in the rectum, and multiple
fractures. These injuries, inflicted on the appellant
while he was continuously kept under illegal
detention at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara
under the exclusive control of police personnel, are
consistent with established methods of custodial
torture designed to minimise external bruising and
detection. On the other hand, the post facto
registration of the FIR7 dated 23rd February, 2023,
and the implausibility of the suicide theory strongly
suggest an orchestrated attempt to shield the
perpetrators and to legitimise an otherwise apparent
incident of unlawful custody and brutal custodial
torture.
5.2 Learned senior counsel vehemently submitted
that despite the appellant and his wife making
persistent and desperate attempts to approach
various authorities seeking justice for the barbaric
custodial torture inflicted upon the appellant, there
7 FIR No. 17 of 2023.
10
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
has been a complete and systematic denial of justice
at every level. Immediately after coming to know
about the condition of the appellant, his wife filed a
complaint on 1st March, 2023, followed by a formal
legal notice through counsel on 2nd March 2023,
vividly detailing the brutal custodial torture and
seeking registration of FIR against the perpetrators of
the heinous crime. Learned senior counsel
emphasised that despite these timely complaints that
clearly made out cognizable offences punishable
under Sections 307, 330, 331, 326 and other
provisions of the IPC, the authorities turned a blind
eye and deaf ear and instead of registering an FIR
against the involved police officials, they maliciously
registered a patently false FIR No. 32 of 2023 against
the victim (appellant) under Section 309 of the IPC.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
appellant’s wife was compelled to move an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
to obtain his Medical Reports from SKIMS, Soura-
Srinagar, as even basic medical records were being
withheld to suppress evidence of the brutal custodial
torture. Left with no recourse, the appellant was
constrained to move the High Court seeking
11
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
registration of an FIR. Despite the High Court
acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and
expressing sufficient doubts regarding the official
narrative, it stopped short of granting substantive
relief and instead directed a preliminary enquiry by
the very officer whose subordinates were implicated
in the alleged custodial violence.
5.3 The High Court, in the Impugned Order, failed
to appreciate that Section 309 of the IPC has been
rendered completely redundant by virtue of Section
115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 20178. Learned
Counsel urged that Section 115 of the MH Act creates
an irrebuttable presumption that any person who
attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to be
under severe stress and shall not be tried and
punished under Section 309 of the IPC. Learned
senior counsel, with utmost vehemence, urged that
this position has been categorically settled by this
Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India9,
wherein it was categorically held that Section 309 of
the IPC has become largely ineffective, and instead of
8 Hereinafter referred to as ‘MH Act.’
9 (2018) 10 SCC 1 at Para 247.
12
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
being a criminal offence, the Government has an
affirmative duty to provide care and rehabilitation.
Hence, the FIR No. 32 of 2023 is nothing but a
fabricated and bogus case registered merely to create
a false defence for the errant police officers, and the
same is liable to be quashed as it fails to disclose any
cognizable offence in view of the Navtej Johar (supra)
and the provisions of the MH Act.
5.4 That the learned High Court has committed a
grave error in law by failing to recognise the clear and
egregious violation of the appellant’s fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, and committed grave injustice by merely
ordering a preliminary enquiry rather than
mandatorily directing the registration of an FIR. The
settled position of law, as laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P.10, unequivocally mandates the registration of an
FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence,
particularly where public officials are alleged to have
committed such offences. In the present case, the
appellant’s wife, Rubina Aktar, submitted a written
10 (2014) 2 SCC 1 at Para 119.
13
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
complaint on 1st March, 2023, within three days of
the incident, clearly narrating acts of custodial
torture and grievous assault amounting to grave
cognizable offences. In view of this, there existed no
legal basis for deferring the registration of the FIR or
substituting the statutory mandate under Section
154 CrPC (corresponding Section 173 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202311) with a
preliminary inquiry. The High Court’s failure to
adhere to this binding precedent not only dilutes the
legal safeguards against custodial violence but also
effectively sanctions immunity for the illegal acts
committed by the errant officials under the colour of
public authority, thereby undermining the
appellant’s fundamental right to equality before law
and protection of life and personal liberty.
5.5 That the unprecedented severity of the
custodial torture inflicted upon the appellant, who is
a serving constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police,
and the systematic cover-up orchestrated by the local
police apparatus, necessitates immediate transfer of
investigation to the CBI in order to ensure a fair,
11 Hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS.’
14
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
impartial, and credible inquiry. The High Court’s
direction, in the impugned order, entrusting the
inquiry to the very Senior Superintendent of Police,
whose signal dated 17th February, 2023 led to the
appellant’s illegal summoning and subsequent
torture, constitutes a clear violation of the principles
of natural justice, rendering the inquiry inherently
biased and devoid of credibility. For over a year, the
appellant and his wife have been compelled to
approach multiple forums merely to seek the
registration of an FIR. In these deeply disturbing
circumstances, only a CBI investigation can vindicate
the rule of law, restore public trust and confidence in
the system, and ensure that the perpetrators of such
inhuman and shocking offences do not go
unpunished.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant implored the Court to
accept these appeals, set aside the impugned
judgment and prayed that this is a fit case warranting
exercise of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India so as to direct registration of the
FIR against the respondents and transfer the said
15
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
investigation to the CBI, in the interest of justice and
to uphold the rule of law.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents: –
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
for the respondents/Union Territory, has opposed
the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel
for the appellant. He presented the following
pertinent submissions imploring this Court to
dismiss the present appeals:
6.1 That the appellant’s allegations of custodial
torture are nothing but a bundle of lies cooked up
with an intent to cover up his attempted suicide and
to divert attention from his own culpability in the
offences under investigation, thereby discrediting the
investigation and maligning the authorities involved.
All injuries, as alleged by the appellant, were self-
inflicted during attempted suicide. He urged that the
appellant had complete access to all areas within the
Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara including the
bathroom from where he obtained a shaving razor
blade on the morning of 26th February, 2023. The
CCTV footage corroborates that the appellant was
16
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
seen walking normally with other jawans until 09:00
am, after which he entered the barracks and was not
seen until 11:15 am, which was when the other
constables had discovered his injuries. The forensic
evidence further supports this version; the FSL report
confirms that DNA extracted from blood stains on the
seized razor and mattress matched the appellant’s
blood sample, prima facie establishing that the razor
was used by the appellant himself. The medical
officer at Sub District Hospital, Kupwara has
categorically stated in his signed statement that the
superficial cuts on the appellant’s right arm were
consistent with persons having suicidal tendencies,
and no other injuries were found beyond those
mentioned in the injury form. Learned counsel urged
that the allegations of custodial torture are entirely
fabricated and malicious, designed solely to prejudice
the investigation of grave offence punishable under
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
198512 in which the appellant was found involved.
6.2 Rebutting the appellant’s claims of illegal
detention, the learned counsel urged that the entire
12 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’
17
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
procedure was a part of lawful investigation. The
appellant was initially summoned through proper
channels, a signal was flashed by District Police
Office Kupwara, to District Police Office Baramulla on
14th February, 2023, followed by another signal on
17th February, 2023, directing the appellant to report
to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara on 20th
February, 2023, for questioning in connection with
FIR No. 01 of 2023 registered on 1st January, 2023
under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and
under Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, and 38 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.13 Learned counsel
urged that the appellant was not under any form of
custody but was asked to remain available for
investigation purposes due to his suspected
involvement in serious offences of narcotic trade. The
appellant, being hailing from Tehsil Karnah (67
kilometres away) and posted in District Baramulla
(49 kilometres away), chose to stay at JIC Kupwara
for convenience during the winter season. Learned
counsel submitted that the appellant’s assertion
about the fact that he had been summoned in
13 Hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP Act’
18
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
relation to FIR No. 17 of 2023 before its registration
is misconceived because he was actually summoned
in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2023, and during
this investigation, fresh evidence emerged leading to
registration of FIR No. 17 of 2023 on 23 rd February,
2023 under Sections 8, 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act,
wherein accused Farooq Hussain, who was arrested
followed by recovery of 2.674 kilograms of Heroin,
disclosed the appellant’s involvement. The District
Superintendent of Police, Baramulla and Deputy
Inspector General North Kashmir Range were
telephonically informed about the investigational
developments, demonstrating proper procedural
compliance.
6.3 The appellant’s reliance on Section 115 of the
MH Act, raising the presumption of severe stress is
rebuttable and has been negated in this case.
Learned counsel urged that until 25th February,
2023, the appellant was found to be hale and hearty,
and showed no abnormality in behaviour which
might suggest some mental distress that could lead
to attempted suicide. The initial medical examination
report prima facie negates the presumption of severe
stress sought to be drawn under Section 115 of the
19
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
MH Act. Learned counsel contended that the
appellant’s suicide attempt was not driven by mental
illness but was a calculated move to derail the
investigation of the serious NDPS cases (i.e., FIR Nos.
01 of 2023 and 17 of 2023) in which his involvement
was duly established. Learned counsel urged that FIR
No. 32 of 2023 under Section 309 of the IPC is validly
registered as the evidence clearly establishes a
deliberate suicide attempt to evade investigation
rather than any mental health crisis, making the case
fall outside the protective ambit of the MH Act.
On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
respondent/Union Territory contended that the
present appeals should be dismissed, and in view of
the extensive preliminary enquiry already conducted,
the prayer for transfer of the case to the CBI is
unwarranted and ought to be declined.
Discussion and Analysis: –
7. We have given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through
the impugned judgment. With the assistance of20
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the
material placed on record.
8. The primary issues that arise for our consideration
in the present case are as follows:
I. Whether the facts and circumstances disclosed
in the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife
dated 1st March 2023, supported by compelling
medical evidence of grievous injuries, including
complete genital mutilation, mandatorily
required registration of an FIR?
II. Whether the gravity of the alleged custodial
torture, the systematic cover-up by local police
machinery, and the inherent conflict of interest
arising from the pendency of cases punishable
under NDPS Act against the appellant
necessitate transfer of investigation to the
Central Bureau of Investigation to ensure a fair,
impartial and credible inquiry?
III. Whether FIR No. 32 of 2023 dated 26th
February, 2023, registered against the
appellant under Section 309 of IPC should be
quashed as being manifestly mala fide and
constituting an abuse of the process of law?
21
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
9. In the present case, it is undisputed that the
appellant, who is serving as a constable in the
Jammu & Kashmir Police, was summoned for an
inquiry concerning alleged violations under the NDPS
Act and, in compliance with the said summons of
higher officials, he had reported to the Joint
Interrogation Centre, Kupwara on 20th February,
2023. It is admitted that between 20th February and
26th February, 2023, the appellant sustained
numerous injuries including castration of his genital
regions and was admitted to SKIMS Hospital at 2:48
pm on 26th February, 2023. It is also undisputed that
the dismembered genitalia were brought to the
hospital in a separate plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector,
a fact that shocks our conscience. The medical
documents issued from SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar
conclusively establish the horrific nature of the
injuries which inter alia include, complete mutilation
of genitalia with both testicles removed, a 10 cm x 5
cm laceration on the scrotum, tenderness on palms
and feet, bruises on buttocks extending to thighs,
multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and
fractures throughout the body. The Discharge
Summary further provides unequivocal medical22
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
evidence that the appellant underwent an extensive
surgical procedure, including “exploration and repair
of corporal bodies with end-to-end anastomosis of
urethra, ligation of spermatic cord, repair of scrotal
laceration, and debridement of necrotic tissue,” and
was discharged on 2nd March, 2023. The appellant’s
wife, Rubina Aktar, had filed a complaint dated 1st
March, 2023, within three days of the incident
levelling clear allegations, disclosing cognizable
offences committed by the police personnel. However,
no action was taken upon the said complaint. These
facts, standing alone and uncontroverted, establish a
prima facie case of the most heinous form of custodial
torture and the total apathy of the local police officials
in taking action against the perpetrators of custodial
violence.
I. On the Issue of Registration of an FIR
10. The question of mandatory registration of FIR
has been conclusively settled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra), which
laid down unambiguous principles that brook no
exception or deviation. The Constitution Bench
categorically held that registration of an FIR is
23
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC
(corresponding Section 173 of BNSS) when
information disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence is received by the police, and no
preliminary inquiry is required or permissible in such
cases. The Constitution Bench emphasised that the
police have no discretion in the matter of registration
of an FIR once alleged facts disclose commission of
cognizable offences. The relevant paragraphs and
guidelines framed in Lalita Kumari (supra) are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“119. But, if the information given clearly
mentions the commission of a cognizable
offence, there is no other option but to
register an FIR forthwith. Other
considerations are not relevant at the stage
of registration of FIR, such as, whether the
information is falsely given, whether the
information is genuine, whether the
information is credible, etc. These are the
issues that have to be verified during the
investigation of the FIR. At the stage of
registration of FIR, what is to be seen is
merely whether the information given ex
facie discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the
information given is found to be false, there
is always an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing a false FIR.”
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
hold:
24
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory
under Section 154 of the Code, if the
information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but indicates
the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure
must be supplied to the first informant
forthwith and not later than one week. It
must disclose reasons in brief for closing the
complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his
duty of registering offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed. Action must be taken
against erring officers who do not register the
FIR if information received by him discloses
a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is
not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.”[Emphasis Supplied]
11. In the present case, the allegations made by the
appellant and his wife unequivocally disclose the
25
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
commission of cognizable offences perpetrating from
custodial torture. On 20th February, 2023, the
appellant reported at the Joint Interrogation Centre
(JIC), Kupwara, where he alleges illegal detention for
six days without any formal arrest or FIR. During this
period of alleged unlawful custody, he claims to have
been subjected to brutal physical torture.
Furthermore, the medical reports issued from
SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar provide concrete proof of
grievous injuries, including complete genital
mutilation, systematic beatings, and torture marks,
ruling out the scope for subjective interpretation or
discretionary exercise. These medical findings, taken
in conjunction with the appellant’s forced detention
at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara from 20th
to 26th February 2023, part of which was
undoubtedly illegal, clearly establish the commission
of cognizable offences by persons in authority,
making registration of FIR not merely advisable but
mandatory under the Lalita Kumari (supra)
framework.
12. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari
(supra) specifically carved out exceptions where a
26
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
preliminary inquiry may be conducted but
categorically excluded cases involving allegations
against public servants, discharging their official
capacity, particularly in matters involving custodial
violence. The Court recognised that allowing a
preliminary inquiry in such cases would enable
institutional cover-up and defeat the very purpose of
criminal law, designed to protect citizens from state
excesses. In the present case, the allegations of
custodial violence are levelled against police officers
of the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara who
illegally detained the appellant and allegedly
subjected him to systematic torture resulting in
permanent disability and trauma. The nature of
custodial violence, where the victim is completely at
the mercy of state authorities, demands immediate
registration of an FIR being a constitutional mandate
required to preserve evidence, protect witnesses, and
ensure that the institutional machinery does not get
time and opportunity to fabricate defence or destroy
incriminating material.
13. The failure of local police authorities to register
an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences
27
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
supported by compelling medical evidence
constitutes a direct violation of the appellant’s
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
14. The High Court committed a grave error in law
by failing to exercise the writ jurisdiction and in
refusing to apply the mandatory principles laid down
by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra).
Instead of ordering immediate registration of FIR, the
High Court directed the very same Senior
Superintendent of Police, Kupwara who had issued
the Signal dated 17th February, 2023 summoning the
appellant and under whose jurisdiction the alleged
torture occurred, to conduct an inquiry into his own
subordinates’ actions. This direction constitutes a
flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of
natural justice encapsulated in the Latin maxim
“nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge
in his own cause). The High Court’s approach, by
treating this as a case requiring a preliminary inquiry
rather than immediate registration of FIR,
demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the
settled legal position and has resulted in the denial
28
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
of justice to the appellant who is the victim of
custodial torture.
II. On the Issue of Transfer of the Investigation
to CBI
15. It is a settled position of law that the credibility
of an investigation agency should be both
impeachable and unquestionable. The power to
transfer investigations to a certain investigating
agency must be sparingly used in the interest of
justice and to maintain public trust in the institution.
If the investigating agency is privy to the dispute, it
may raise doubts on the credibility of the
investigation and thus, would be a valid ground to
transfer the investigation. In this regard, gainful
reference may be made to the decision of this Court
in Mohd. Anis v. Union of India14, wherein it was
held as follows:
“5. … Fair and impartial investigation by an
independent agency, not involved in the
controversy, is the demand of public interest. If
the investigation is by an agency which is
allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of
the investigation will be doubted and that will
be contrary to the public interest as well as the14 1994 Supp (1) SCC 145.
29
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
interest of justice.” (SCC p. 148, para 5) “2. …
Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness of
the investigation as it was feared that as the
local police was alleged to be involved in the
encounters, the investigation by an officer of the
U.P. Cadre may not be impartial.”
16. Similarly, this Court in the case of R.S.
Sodhi v. State of U.P.15, noted that:
“2. … We have perused the events that have
taken place since the incidents but we are
refraining from entering upon the details thereof
lest it may prejudice any party but we think that
since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to
entrust the investigation to an independent
agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation
so that all concerned including the relatives of
the deceased may feel assured that an
independent agency is looking into the matter
and that would lend the final outcome of the
investigation credibility. However faithfully the
local police may carry out the investigation, the
same will lack credibility since the allegations
are against them. It is only with that in mind
that we having thought it both advisable and
desirable as well as in the interest of justice to
entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau
of Investigation forthwith and we do hope that it
would complete the investigation at an early
date so that those involved in the occurrences,
one way or the other, may be brought to book.
We direct accordingly.”
(Emphasis Supplied)15 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143.
30
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
17. Thus, the power to transfer an investigation to
the CBI is not to be exercised as a matter of course.
The Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal (CPDR)16, examined the circumstances
under which Constitutional Courts may invoke their
jurisdiction to direct a CBI investigation. The Court
observed that while the power to transfer
investigation to the CBI must be exercised with
circumspection and only in exceptional
circumstances, such power is nonetheless available
to be exercised when it is necessary to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent infringement of
fundamental rights. The Court further held that such
extraordinary jurisdiction may be invoked to ensure
a fair and impartial investigation where state
machinery appears to be ineffective, biased, or
complicit. The relevant observations from the said
judgment are extracted below:
“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed16 (2010) 3 SCC 571.
31
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
limitations on the exercise of these
constitutional powers. The very plenitude of
the power under the said articles requires
great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the
question of issuing a direction to CBI to
conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid
down to decide whether or not such power
should be exercised but time and again it has
been reiterated that such an order is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely
because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the
incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
CBI would be flooded with a large number of
cases and with limited resources, may find it
difficult to properly investigate even serious
cases and in the process lose its credibility and
purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. The settled principle of law that emerges from
the abovementioned decisions is that the power to
transfer the investigation of a criminal case to the CBI
is an extraordinary measure, which must be
exercised sparingly with great caution, and only in
rare and exceptional circumstances. This jurisdiction
must not be invoked lightly or in a routine fashion,
32
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
but only where the facts of the case disclose a
compelling necessity to ensure fairness in
investigation, preservation of public faith in the
administration of justice and protection of
fundamental rights of the parties involved. In
examining the prayer made by an aggrieved person
seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI, the Court
must necessarily be guided by the strict parameters
laid down in binding precedents. These include, inter
alia, instances where the State police authorities
appear to be biased or complicit, where the
investigation has been tainted by delay, irregularity,
suppression of material facts, or where the
complexity and inter-State ramifications of the
matter necessitate the involvement of a central
agency.
19. The unprecedented gravity of this case involving
brutal and inhuman custodial torture, characterised
by the complete mutilation of the appellant’s
genitalia, represents one of the most barbaric
instances of police atrocity which the State is trying
to defend and cover up with all pervasive power. The
medical evidence conclusively establishes that such
33
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
injuries are impossible to be self-inflicted. The
respondent’s theory of suicide attempt crumbles
under scrutiny when examined against the timeline
and the medical evidence. The appellant was
summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre,
Kupwara on 17th February, 2023 through a signal
communication, which, notably, made no reference
to any specific FIR. The relevant portion of the signal
is reproduced herein:
“DD Extract report No.25 daily dairy dated
20-02-2023 on behalf of lines Officer DPL
BaramullaDeparture Report:- Time 1145 hours.
Be it registered that as per signal
No.ESTT/DE/2023/8135 dated 17-02-2023
issued by District Police Headquarters
Baramulla SgCt Khursheed Ahmad 489/B
under PID No.EXK-001355 presently posted in
Estate Section DPL Baramulla is deputed to
District Police Headquarters Kupwara in
connection with enquiry of narcotic Drugs.”Despite there being no reference of a registered
case, the respondents subsequently claim that the
appellant was summoned for questioning in
connection with FIR No. 01 of 2023. However, this
claim is contradicted by the fact that FIR No. 17 of
2023, under which the appellant was later34
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
implicated, was not registered until 23rd February
2023, and was based on the alleged disclosure made
by co-accused Farooq Hussain, who was arrested
following the recovery of a narcotic substance. This
temporal anomaly exposes the fabricated nature of
the respondent’s case and conclusively establishes
illegal detention of the appellant from 20th February,
2023 to 26th February, 2023.
20. More significantly, the respondent’s suicide
theory is demolished when assessed in light of the
medical evidence, which decisively rules out the
theory of the harm being self-inflicted. The complete
surgical removal of both testicles, the extensive
injuries to the appellant’s palms and soles, consistent
with custodial torture techniques such as falanga,
the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the
rectum, and bruising on the buttocks extending to
the thighs all points to a pattern of sustained and
systematic torture. These injuries are medically
impossible to be self-inflicted, particularly in the
absence of fatal hemorrhage or loss of consciousness,
as would have occurred had the mutilation been self-
administered. The respondent’s reliance on
35
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
superficial cuts to the forearm as indicative of a
suicide attempt pales in comparison to the
magnitude and nature of the injuries sustained.
Furthermore, CCTV footage showing the appellant
walking normally until 9:00 am on 26th February,
2023 only intensifies the doubts surrounding the
respondent’s account, as it leaves unexplained how
such grievous and complex injuries could be self-
inflicted in the narrow window between 9:00 am and
11:15 am, without any signs of struggle, distress, or
intervention by others within a secured and
surveilled facility. These glaring inconsistencies and
manifest contradictions render the respondent’s
version wholly implausible and reinforce the
necessity of an independent investigation.
21. The respondent’s narrative reveals a disturbing
pattern of systematic cover-up and abuse of authority
that further strengthens the appellant’s claim for CBI
investigation. Though the appellant’s wife attempted
to file a complaint immediately after the incident
through a legal notice dated 2nd March, 2023, the
respondents dismissively stated in their response
given in Court that the allegations were frivolous,
36
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
having no substance and hence were not replied. This
cavalier dismissal of serious allegations of custodial
torture demonstrates the institutional bias and
predetermined mindset to protect the accused police
officers. The influence being exercised by local police
officials is evident from the fact that no proper
investigation was initiated despite clear medical
evidence of torture, and instead, a counter FIR No. 32
of 2023 was registered against the victim himself
under Section 309 of the IPC to create a false
narrative. The respondent’s assertion that the
appellant and his wife were making attempts to
somehow deter the respondents and the Police
authorities from investigating the heinous offences
involving the appellant, reveals the mindset of
viewing torture victims as impediments to
investigation rather than victims deserving justice.
22. While the respondents seeks to justify the
appellant’s prolonged detention and subsequent
torture by referring to his alleged involvement in FIR
No. 01 of 2023 and FIR No. 17 of 2023 under the
NDPS Act, this very argument strengthens the case
for an independent investigation. The pendency of
37
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
these cases creates a conflict of interest where the
same police machinery that is accused of custodial
torture is also investigating the NDPS cases against
the appellant. This creates an inherent bias where
the investigating officers have a vested interest in
suppressing the torture allegations to protect
themselves while simultaneously trying to indict the
appellant in NDPS offences. The respondent’s
argument that the appellant attempted suicide ‘to
dodge the investigation’ is not only medically
impossible given the nature of injuries but also
logically flawed. It is foolhardy to suggest that a
rational person would subject himself to complete
genital mutilation and cause injuries at inaccessible
body parts so as to avoid questioning in a drug case.
The investigation of the custodial torture allegations
and the NDPS cases require complete separation and
independence, which can only be achieved through
the transfer of investigation to an independent
agency. The current scenario, where the accused
officers continue to investigate the very person, they
allegedly tortured, makes a mockery of the criminal
justice system and violates the very principle of
fairness and transparency.
38
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
23. We are of the considered opinion that in
rejecting the writ petition, the High Court grossly
erred in failing to exercise its constitutional
obligation of protecting the fundamental rights of a
citizen, his dignity and right to life. It failed to
consider the gravity of offences committed as well as
the influence that could be exerted by accused
persons being police officials. There was a clear
requirement and a constitutional mandate to refer
the matter to the CBI for investigation so that fair and
uninfluenced investigation could be conducted. The
High Court’s failure to appreciate that the accused
are not ordinary citizens but police officers wielding
considerable power and influence within the local
administrative and investigative machinery
demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the dynamics of custodial torture cases. Police
officers, by virtue of their position, have access to
evidence, witnesses, and investigative records, and
possess the institutional authority to manipulate,
suppress, or destroy crucial evidence that could
establish their culpability.
39
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
24. This Court has addressed the grave issue of
custodial torture, inhuman treatment, and custodial
deaths in a series of notable judgments including D.K
Basu v. State of West Bengal17, State of M.P. v.
Shyamsunder Trivedi18 and Nilabati Behera v.
State of Orissa.19 This Court has not only
condemned the nature and extent of such violations
as affronts to human dignity and constitutional
rights but has also underscored the imperative for a
thorough, impartial, and effective investigation into
every instance of custodial violence. The Court has
repeatedly emphasised that accountability must be
ensured through proper legal and procedural
mechanisms so that such acts do not go unchecked
or unpunished.
25. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court, while laying
down effective guidelines for police officials
emphasised the procedures to be followed during
arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and
to safeguard the rights of the accused. The Court
noted that:
17 (1997) 1SCC 416.
18 (1995) 4 SCC 262.
19 (1993) 2 SCC 746.
40
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
“9. Custodial violence, including torture and
death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule
of law, which demands that the powers of the
executive should not only be derived from law
but also that the same should be limited by law.
Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is
aggravated by the fact that it is committed by
persons who are supposed to be the protectors of
the citizens. It is committed under the shield of
uniform and authority in the four walls of a
police station or lock-up, the victim being totally
helpless. The protection of an individual from
torture and abuse by the police and other law-
enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in
a free society.
11. “Custodial torture” is a naked violation of
human dignity and degradation which destroys,
to a very large extent, the individual personality.
It is a calculated assault on human dignity and
whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation
takes a step backward — flag of humanity must
on each such occasion fly half-mast.”
26. Further, this Court in Shyamsunder Trivedi
(supra), held that:
“17. Tortures in police custody, which of late are
on the increase, receive encouragement by this
type of an unrealistic approach of the courts
because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the
police that no harm would come to them, if an
odd prisoner dies in the lock-up, because there
would hardly be any evidence available to the
prosecution to directly implicate them with the
torture. The courts must not lose sight of the fact
that death in police custody is perhaps one of the
worst kind of crimes in a civilised society,
governed by the rule of law and poses a serious
threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in41
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens
recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an
affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the
maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners
or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised
nation and encourages the men in ‘Khaki’ to
consider themselves to be above the law and
sometimes even to become law unto themselves.
Unless stern measures are taken to check the
malady, the foundations of the criminal justice
delivery system would be shaken and the
civilization itself would risk the consequence of
heading towards perishing. The courts must,
therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic
manner and with the sensitivity which they
deserve, otherwise the common man may lose
faith in the judiciary itself, which will be a sad
day.”
27. Considering the unprecedented gravity of this
custodial torture case, the systematic cover-up
orchestrated by local police machinery, the
institutional bias demonstrated in the handling of the
complaint, and the complete failure of local
authorities to conduct a fair investigation and the
unrelenting stand taken by the respondent State, we
are constrained to direct transfer of investigation to
the CBI. The local police at Kupwara have
demonstrated complete institutional failure by first
illegally detaining the appellant from 20th February,
2023, then subjecting him to barbaric and systematic
torture resulting in permanent mutilation and finally
42
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
refusing to register the complaint filed by the
appellant’s wife while simultaneously creating
counter-narratives to shield the perpetrators from
accountability. By directing the very Senior
Superintendent of Police, who summoned the
appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara,
just to conduct an enquiry at such a belated stage,
combined with the pendency of NDPS cases, creates
a conflict of interest, making it impossible for any fair
investigation to be conducted at the local level. Only
investigation by an independent agency, i.e., CBI can
restore public faith in the criminal justice system,
ensure that this dehumanising crime does not go
unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges
without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts.
The majesty of law demands nothing less than
complete independence and impartiality in
investigating crimes that shock the conscience of
society and violate the most fundamental principles
of human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the transfer of
investigation to the CBI becomes not merely
advisable but constitutionally imperative to ensure
justice and uphold the rule of law.
43
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
III. On the issue of quashing of the FIR filed
against the appellant: –
28. This Court has, in a catena of judgments,
consistently held that at the stage of considering a
petition for quashing criminal proceedings, it is not
the function of the Court to meticulously examine the
truthfulness, reliability, or veracity of the allegations
contained in the FIR or accompanying materials.
Nonetheless, it remains a settled principle of law that
the allegations, even if accepted at their face value,
must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
Whether such disclosure arises from the FIR itself,
the chargesheet, or any other material placed on
record, the essential requirement is that the
ingredients of the alleged offence must be prima facie
satisfied. It is the duty of the Constitutional Courts
to safeguard the machinery of criminal law from
being reduced to a means of vengeance, oppression,
or personal vendetta. Where it is evident that the
initiation or continuation of proceedings amounts to
an abuse of process or is intended to harass the
accused, the Court is not only empowered but
obligated to intervene and quash such proceedings in
44
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
the interest of justice. Thus, while the threshold for
interference at the preliminary stage is high, it does
not preclude judicial scrutiny altogether. Discretion
under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding
Section 528 of the BNSS) must be exercised
judiciously, especially in cases where the allegations
are inherently improbable, absurd, or lack the factual
substratum necessary to constitute a prosecutable
offence.
29. This Court in a locus classicus judgment, State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20, on the subject has laid
down parameters for quashing of an FIR and the
subsequent proceedings thereof. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure20 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
45
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever
46
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.”
30. Recently, a coordinate bench of this Court in the
case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.21, noted
that:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance,
then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more21 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.
47
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance,
etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time. It is in
the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. In the present case, the authorities, instead of
registering the complaint of the appellant regarding
custodial torture, filed a counter FIR against him
under Section 309 of the IPC. Perusal of the
48
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
contents of FIR (supra) reflect that the allegations
made therein are vague and manifestly
contradictory to the established medical evidence.
The FIR states that the appellant tried to cut his
vein with a blade, however, the medical records,
above discussed, reveal that the injuries are much
graver and more extensive than what is depicted in
this manifestly fabricated narrative. The stark
disparity between the trivial description of ‘cutting
his vein’ in the FIR and the barbaric reality of
complete castration and systematic torture exposes
the mala fide intent behind registering this counter-
FIR.
32. In our considered view, the present case
squarely falls within parameters (1) and (7) laid
down by this Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) whereby,
this Court authoritatively held that quashing is
justified where: (i) the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint, even if taken at face value and
accepted in entirety, do not disclose the
commission of any offence, or (ii) the criminal
proceedings are manifestly tainted by mala fides,
having been instituted maliciously with the ulterior
49
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
purpose of wreaking vengeance. The registration of
FIR No. 32 of 2023 against the victim of custodial
torture constitutes a classic example of
institutional abuse and perversion of criminal
justice machinery to shield the real perpetrators
while victimizing the complainant. The
transformation of a torture victim into an accused
through a concocted theory of attempted suicide,
based on manifestly implausible medical opinion
and glaring procedural violations, reflects
institutional malice of the highest order. The timing
and manner of registration of this FIR, which was a
sequel to the torture incident and in complete
disregard of nature, number and location of injuries
caused to the victim, demonstrates that it was
conceived as a pre-emptive defense mechanism
rather than a genuine police action based on a
truthful investigation. This is not merely a case of
investigative error or overreach; it is a calculated
effort to fabricate charges, distort the narrative, and
shield the real perpetrators of crime of custodial
torture. The use of State machinery to invert the
roles of victim and offender represents a grave
subversion of the criminal process and compels the
50
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
intervention of this Court to prevent the
miscarriage of justice.
33. Upon evaluating the present case and the
material on record, we find that the High Court
gravely erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash FIR No. 32
of 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom.
Faced with a clear abuse of process, where a
custodial torture victim is falsely implicated to
shield the perpetrators, the High Court was duty-
bound to intervene.
34. Before we conclude, we deem it necessary to
address the question of compensation to the
appellant, who is a victim of brutal and inhuman
custodial torture. It is now well-settled in Indian
constitutional jurisprudence that where
fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India are violated by State machinery,
appropriate monetary compensation may be an
effective remedy. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court
held that pecuniary compensation is an appropriate
and effective remedy for the infringement of
51
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
fundamental rights caused by State officials and
that the defence of sovereign immunity is
inapplicable. The Court noted that such
compensation must focus on the compensatory
element and serve as a balm to the victim, without
prejudice to other remedies in civil or criminal law.
35. The principle has been reiterated in Nilabati
Behera (supra) and Sube Singh v. State of
Haryana22, where this Court held that
compensation may be awarded when the violation
of Article 21 is patent, incontrovertible, and of a
magnitude that shocks the conscience of the Court.
The relevant observations from the said judgment
are extracted below:
“46. In cases where custodial death or custodial
torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed
under Article 21 is established, the courts may
award compensation in a proceeding under
Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding
compensation, the Court will have to pose to
itself the following questions: (a) whether the
violation of Article 21 is patent and
incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is
gross and of a magnitude to shock the
conscience of the court, (c) whether the custodial
torture alleged has resulted in death or whether22 (2006) 3 SCC 178.
52
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
custodial torture is supported by medical report
or visible marks or scars or disability.”
36. We are of the unequivocal opinion that the
present case meets all such criteria. The injuries
caused to the appellant during his illegal detention,
particularly the complete mutilation of his
genitalia, use of pepper/chilly powder and electric
shocks on his genitalia, are grave reminders of the
inhuman torture meted out to the appellant while
detaining him illegally. The cumulative effect of all
these facts is deeply shocking to the conscience of
this Court.
37. Accordingly, considering the gravity and
magnitude of the custodial torture established
through medical records and the institutional
apathy that followed, we are of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case for awarding
compensation to the victim of the violence, i.e., the
appellant herein. The violation of Article 21 is not
only evident but egregious. The appellant, a police
constable himself, suffered life-debilitating injuries
while in the custody of fellow state actors, and
despite repeated complaints, no effective redress
was provided. In line with the decisions referred
53
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
above, and in discharge of the Court’s duty to
uphold constitutional protections, we direct the
State to pay interim compensation to the tune of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the
appellant. This compensation is without prejudice
to the appellant’s right to pursue further remedies
for additional compensation before appropriate
forum. The State Government shall be under an
obligation to recover the said amount from the
officials found guilty upon completion of the
investigation/disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion & Directions: –
38. In exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and in furtherance of the
constitutional mandate to protect fundamental
rights, we hereby issue the following directions: –
I. The Director, CBI, shall forthwith direct
registration of a RC in relation to the incidents
of custodial violence and illegal detention of the
appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre,
Kupwara during the period from 20th February,54
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
2023 to 26th February, 2023, under relevant
provisions of the penal statutes, based on the
complaint filed by the appellant’s wife dated 1st
March, 2023 and the medical evidence on
record. The RC shall be registered within 7 days
of this order.
II. The entire material collected in enquiry
conducted so far, including all related
documents, medical records, CCTV footage,
forensic evidence, and case diary, shall be
immediately handed over to the competent
officer of the CBI. The Director, CBI, shall
constitute a Special Investigation Team headed
by an officer not below the rank of
Superintendent of Police to investigate this
matter. The police officials found responsible for
the custodial torture shall be arrested forthwith
and not later than a period of one month from
today. The investigation shall be completed
within 90 days of the date of registration of the
RC.
III. The CBI shall also conduct a comprehensive
inquiry into the systemic issues at the Joint
Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, including55
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
examination of all CCTV systems, interrogation
from all personnel present during the relevant
period, forensic examination of the premises,
and review of all protocols and procedures
followed for detention and interrogation of
suspects.
IV. FIR No. 32 of 2023, registered against the
appellant under Section 309 of the IPC at Police
Station Kupwara, is hereby quashed being
prima facie fabricated as, in our considered
view, the same was registered with mala fide
intent to shield the guilty officers and prejudice
the rights of the appellant.
V. A sequel to the above discussion and in order to
provide some solace to the victim and his family
for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading
to complete castration, we hereby direct the
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Lakhs) to the appellant (victim). The said
amount shall be recoverable from the officer(s)
concerned against whom a departmental
proceeding shall be initiated upon conclusion of
the investigation by the CBI. The CBI shall56
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
submit its status report to this Court by 10th
November, 2025.
39. At the outset, we deem it necessary to clarify
that the observations made herein concerning the
investigation into the allegations of custodial torture
are strictly limited to the adjudication of the
appellant’s case and the impugned proceedings
under consideration. Nothing contained in this order
shall be construed as expressing any opinion on the
merits of any other prosecution, and it is expressly
provided that any proceedings arising therefrom shall
go on independently and uninfluenced by the present
findings, in accordance with law.
40. In view of the above discussion, the impugned
judgment dated 18th September, 2023, passed by the
learned Single Bench of the High Court of Jammu &
Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023 connected
with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2023, rejecting the
appellant’s prayer for transfer of investigation to the
CBI, is hereby quashed and set aside.
41. The present appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
57
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023
42. Any pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
43. List again on 17th November, 2025, for receiving
the status report.
…..…………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
.…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2025.
58
Crl Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023