J&K High Court Orders Thorough Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture, Mutilation Of Police Constable

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani thus ordered a thorough investigation into the alleged severe custodial torture and mutilation of a police constable while in the custody of the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara.

“The petitioner in the present case is seeking registration of FIR which FIR can safely be said to be a counter FIR and permissible, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The case at the heart of the matter involved two interconnected petitions, both consolidated for joint scrutiny. In WP (C) 592/2023, the petitioner, a police constable, sought remedies including the registration of an FIR pertaining to his alleged custodial torture. The petitioner alleged he was subjected to brutal treatment in the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara, leading to grave injuries, including amputation of private body parts.

The petitioner further claimed that his wife sought to file an FIR against the accused police personnel due to custodial torture and amputation but the respondents did not initiate any action, constraining him from filing the instant petition alleging violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the alleged disregard of the Supreme Court's directives in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP & Ors concerning FIR registration.

The defence contended that the petitioner had self-inflicted injuries, claimed a suicide attempt by the petitioner, and was involved in multiple narcotics cases.

Concurrently, the court also decided to adjudicate the petitioner's plea under section 482 Cr.PC seeking the quashing of FIR No. 32/2023 dated 26.2.2023, where he was implicated as an accused for the commission of offences under section 309 IPC.

Crucially emphasising the limitations surrounding the filing of a second FIR the bench cited T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) and highlighted that a second FIR could only be considered impermissible if it pertains to the same accused for the same offences for which an FIR had already been registered.

Upon scrutiny of the case record, the court also noted that the petitioner was summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara by the respondents on February 20, 2023, however, the FIR against him was registered three days later following his interrogation. This temporal gap raised reasonable doubts about the narrative presented by the respondents and in view of the same the court recorded,

“This sole fact creates a reasonable doubt in the story projected by the respondents coupled with the fact that the petitioner himself a police personnel alleging custodial torture by the fellow police personnel being a serious issue, thus necessitating an enquiry”.

The Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the custodial torture allegations made by the petitioner’s wife in her complaint and by the petitioner himself. 

“If upon such enquiry the respondent 3 finds commission of an offence is made out, he shall direct registration of FIR forthwith against the accused persons involved in the same and entrust the investigation of the case to a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police”.

Deliberating on the second petition of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR for offence U/s 309 IPC, the court said the investigation in the impugned FIR is at its infancy stage and the court cannot at this stage scan the evidence collected by the investigating agency to ascertain its genuineness and credibility qua the accusation foisted on the petitioner.

Thus it declined to exercise its inherent power in the matter and dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment