Supreme Court: While considering an appeal challenging J&K and Ladakh High Court’s decision to dismiss appellant’s petitions seeking FIR against police personnel; transfer of the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and quashing of the FIR filed against the appellant; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., exercised the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs 50 Lakhs to the appellant so as to provide some solace to the appellant and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration. The Court further directed the CBI to take over the investigation in the matter.
“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”.
Background:
The appellant was a Police Constable who at the time of the alleged incident, was posted at the District Police Headquarters, Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir. On 17-2-2023, the appellant received a signal from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, directing him to report to the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police on 20-2-2023, in connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics matter.
The appellant alleged 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 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 26-2-2023. At SKIMS, the appellant, who was accompanied by a 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. Thereafter, On the same day, i.e., 26-2-2023, an FIR was registered against the appellant by Sub-Inspector and In- Charge, Police Post Tad, Karnah for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Upon learning of the appellant’s condition, his wife, immediately approached Station House Officer, 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 her pleas. 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 served legal notice upon Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Circle (Kupwara/Baramulla); Station House Officer, Police Station, Kupwara; and Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kupwara, but failed to get any response.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated state of events, the appellant approached the High Court but failed to get any relief from there. Eventually, the appellant knocked the doors of the Supreme Court.
Contentions:
Counsels of the appellant submitted that 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 ensure supervised independent investigation.
Per contra, the respondents argued that the appellant’s allegations of custodial torture are nothing but 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.
Issues Framed:
Perusing the facts, contentions raised by the parties and impugned of the High Court, the Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the facts and circumstances disclosed in the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife supported by compelling medical evidence of grievous injuries, including complete genital mutilation, mandatorily required registration of an FIR?
- 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 CBI to ensure a fair, impartial and credible inquiry?
-
Whether registered against the appellant under Section 309 of the IPC should be quashed as being manifestly mala fide and constituting an abuse of the process of law?
Court’s Assessment:
The Court noted that it was undisputed fact that the appellant 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 20-2-2023. Furthermore, it was admitted that between 20-2-2023 and 26-2-2023, the appellant received grievous injuries including castration of his genital regions and was admitted to the hospital.
The Court pointed out that 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. The Discharge Summary further provided unequivocal medical evidence that the appellant underwent an extensive surgical procedure. Furthermore, no action was taken on the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife.
The Court thus opined that these facts, standing alone and uncontroverted, established a prima facie case of the most heinous form of custodial torture and total apathy of the local police officials in acting against the perpetrators of custodial violence.
Answering Issue 1, the Court noted that allegations made by the appellant and his wife unequivocally disclose the commission of cognizable offences perpetrating from custodial torture. The medical findings taken in conjunction with the appellant’s forced detention at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, clearly establish the commission of cognizable offences by persons in authority, making registration of FIR mandatory under Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P, (2014) 2 SCC 1. 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).
“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 of justice to the appellant who is the victim of custodial torture”.
On Issue 2, the Court stated that 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. The Court pointed out that the unprecedented gravity of the instant 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 Court further explained that the respondent’s theory of suicide attempt crumbles under scrutiny when examined against the timeline and the medical evidence. The respondent’s suicide theory was demolished when assessed considering the medical evidence, which decisively ruled out the theory of the harm being self-inflicted. “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 (…) cavalier dismissal of serious allegations of custodial torture demonstrates the institutional bias and predetermined mindset to protect the accused police officers”.
The Court gravely noted that 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”. The Court opined that the in rejecting the appellant’s 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.
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, the Court directed the transfer of investigation to the CBI.
On Issue 3, the Court stated that 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 under Section 482 CrPC, is not only empowered but obligated to intervene and quash such proceedings in the interest of justice.
The Court opined that the instant case fell under the criteria laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The Court pointed out that registering FIR 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 use of State machinery to invert the roles of victim and offender in the instant case, revealed a grave subversion of the criminal process, thereby compelling the intervention of the Court to prevent the miscarriage of justice. The Court opined that the High Court gravely erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash FIR against the appellant. “Faced with a clear abuse of process, where a custodial torture victim is falsely implicated to shield the perpetrators, the High Court was dutybound to intervene”. Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the appellant under Section 309 of the IPC at Police Station Kupwara, finding it prima facie fabricated.
In its concluding remarks, the Court invoked D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 and said that where fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy. “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”.
Directions:
- CBI to register a RC in relation to the incidents of custodial violence and illegal detention of the appellant during the period from 20-2-2023 to 26-2-2023, based on the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife and the medical evidence on record. The RC shall be registered within 7 days of the instant order.
- 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 police officials found responsible for the custodial torture shall be arrested forthwith and not later than a period of one month from 21-7-2025. The investigation shall be completed within 90 days of the date of registration of the RC.
-
CBI shall also conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the systemic issues at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara.
[Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. UT of J&K, SLP(Criminal) No(s). 13751-13752 of 2023, decided on 21-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
