Criminal Courts To Be Proactive Rather Than Passive From Presentation Of Final Report: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The court said that the "snail pace" of justice is attributed to these poorly investigated cases taxing an already "load-ridden docket."
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that it is always expected from a criminal court to be proactive rather than being passive from the very presentation of the final police report to figure out by exercise of judicial acumen as to whether the case presented for subjecting an accused to undergo and stand trial for the alleged offence.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “In fact, this Court is of the view that it is always meant and expected from a criminal court to be proactive rather than being passive from the very presentation of final police report(challan) onwards in scanning the script of the criminal case to figure out by exercise of judicial acumen as to whether the case presented for subjecting an accused to undergo and stand trial for alleged offence/s, has all the factual frames fully probed and presented to sustain framing of charge against an accused or the case presented is a factually fractured and cavitated one just for the sake of booking of an accused with an inevitable fate coded from the very inception that accused is meant to be persecuted rather than prosecuted before the given criminal court of law.”
Advocate Pranav Sharma appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Government Advocate Iliyas Nazir Laway appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the case
A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash a criminal case pending against him.
The case originated from a complaint filed by one Abdul Majeed Shah, who alleged that his daughter, reported as 16–17 years old, had been kidnapped by the petitioner, for the purpose of sexual intercourse. An FIR was registered under Section 363 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Subsequent medical examinations and the victim's own statement under Section 164-A established that she was actually 20 years old and that no recent sexual assault had occurred. Parallel to the investigation, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition in 2015, producing a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir, Jammu, which documented their consensual marriage; during those proceedings, the victim admitted to the marriage but expressed a voluntary desire to return to her parents. Despite these facts and the victim's clear testimony of consent, the police waited over six years to file a Final Police Report, charging the petitioner under Sections 366, 376, and 343 of the RPC.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioner challenged this prosecution before the High Court, highlighting that the police had falsely labelled him an "absconder" and deliberately omitted the judicial records of the victim’s prior admissions of marriage and consent, characterising the belated proceedings as an abuse of the legal process.
It was submitted by the Petitioner that the very registration of FIR at first instance and then the filing of Final Police Report against him by the Police Station Achabal is nothing but a malafide exercise of investigative power by the I.O. and SHO Police Station Achabal, both of whom have acted with a dismissive attitude towards the crucial connecting factual aspects of the case.
Observations of the Court
The Court held, “Presentation and entertainment of such like criminal case/s is one of the underlying causes of snail pace of criminal administration of justice taking place in criminal court/s, as such like cases tax the load-ridden docket system of criminal court/s taking its own time to make a final exit unless and until an aggrieved person subjected to suffer misconceived prosecution is able to somehow reach for inherent power of this Court to be exercised, or a given criminal court self activates its sharp judicial scrutiny of case and give it its deserving fate of rejection at the very charge framing stage without wasting any adjournment for such like case.”
The Court also observed, “When this Court examines the facts stated in the present petition and the mindset with which the I.O. of FIR No. 93/2015 as well as of SHO Police Station Achabal coming up with Final Police Report (Challan) No. 38 of 2022, this Court is left pondering as to why instead of being progressive and open minded in its investigation, the police investigation more often is found to be regressive and stereotyped when very elementary and essential facts which are there to be seen and noticed by an I.O. concerned in connection with the investigation of a given criminal case are given an ignorance and slip with impunity as if by omitting to mention and document said obvious facts the final investigation report will make said facts go in perpetual hiding and fading not to be cited and reported by anyone at any point of time to impinge and impugn given police investigation and the case built and presented thereupon.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal case and disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Suuny Kashyap v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir [Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:351]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Pranav Sharma and M. Asif Mir.
Respondents: Government Advocate Iliyas Nazir Laway.