Srinagar, Oct 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a Magistrate’s order directing registration of an FIR against police personnel over allegations of attempting to kill a man and his family by setting their premises ablaze, observing that the order failed to demonstrate the judicial application of mind required by law.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi passed the judgment while deciding two connected petitions filed by Rohit Sharma and others, and Khalid Ashraf and others. The Court set aside the order passed by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Reasi, on May 5, 2022, directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Chasana to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complaints alleged that police personnel had attempted to kill the complainant and his family members by setting their premises ablaze. The police personnel challenged the Magistrate’s direction, arguing that it had been issued without proper application of judicial mind.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, whose order dated July 4, 2022, dismissed their revision petition as not maintainable, holding that the Magistrate’s direction was interlocutory.
The High Court observed that although a revision against an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was barred, the petitioners could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where an order was alleged to have been passed without jurisdiction or in disregard of mandatory legal requirements.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments on the exercise of powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Court reiterated that a Magistrate must judicially assess whether a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and whether a police investigation is warranted. The reasons reflecting such consideration must be evident from the order.
The Court noted that the Magistrate had merely recorded that the complainant had approached the concerned police station and the Senior Superintendent of Police before filing the complaints. The order neither discussed the allegations in detail nor referred to prima facie material or explained why a police investigation was necessary.
Justice Kazmi further observed that complaints against police personnel concerning acts allegedly committed in the discharge of official duties required particular care and caution. The trial court, the judgment noted, could have examined the matter while considering the competing version that the police personnel had visited the premises to execute an arrest.
However, the High Court clarified that its decision was confined to the legality of the Magistrate’s order and did not determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations against either side.
The Court also declined to treat the complainant’s alleged criminal antecedents as an independent ground for quashing the complaints, observing that a person’s criminal record does not, by itself, prevent the filing of a complaint or establish that no cognizable offence has been disclosed.
While disposing of the petitions, the High Court directed that the May 5, 2022, order be set aside and that any investigation or proceedings consequent upon it should not proceed on the strength of that order.
The complaints have been restored to the Magistrate’s file for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to pass fresh orders, preferably within 15 days of receiving the High Court’s order. The complainant has been directed to appear before the Magistrate, personally or through counsel, on October 23, 2026.
The judgment leaves the complaints open for reconsideration and does not constitute a finding on the merits of the allegations against the police personnel.