The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in a case involving a factual imbroglio as to whether a police constable attempted to commit suicide by amputating his private parts using a shaving razor blade in a barrack while being questioned by the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara, as alleged by the Union Territory, or whether he was subjected to brutal torture by the police officials.

The Bench consisting of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi were dealing with a Special Leave Petition filed by a Police Constable seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code registered against him for allegedly attempting to commit suicide by amputating his private parts.

The Petitioner-constable has impugned an order whereby the High Court refused to quash the FIR against him under Section 309 IPC, stating that the investigation in the impugned FIR is at an early stage. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner-constable approached the Apex Court. The High Court had also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations of custodial torture.

The Apex Court issued notice in the SLP. "Issue notice", said the Court in its order. Senior Advocate B A Bashir along with Advocate-on-Record Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki appeared for the Petitioner.


The police constable, while being posted in District Police Lines, Baramulla was called upon to present himself in the office in pursuance of a signal sent by the office of Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baramulla in connection with an inquiry relating to a narcotic case. Thereafter, in a half-dead state, the Police Constable was shifted to the District Hospital Kupwara and subsequently to SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar in a serious condition accompanied by a Sub-Inspector.

As per the Petitioner, his wife approached the J&K Police for registration of an FIR against the accused police personnel for the alleged custodial torture and amputation of his body parts. The Police refused to register an FIR.

Later, it was informed that an FIR regarding the incident was registered on February 25, 2023, not on the complaint of the petitioner's wife, but on a written docket by the Police, stating that while the Petitioner was kept in a barrack for further questioning where he cut his private part using shaving razor blade under the guilt and the said act being an attempt to commit suicide, necessitated registration of FIR under Section 309 of the IPC.

The Petitioner's wife approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR filed under Section 309 of IPC and a further direction to register their FIR with regards to custodial torture against the Police Officials. The respondents opposed the reliefs sought by the petitioner on the ground that as per the investigation conducted in the impugned FIR, the petitioner had caused self-harm intending to commit suicide, owing to the surfacing of his involvement in multiple narcotic cases.

The High Court, on the prayer for registration of FIR for torture, held, "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 as contemplated by the Apex Court in Lalita Kuamri’s case supra."

Furthermore, the High Court refused to quash the FIR under Section 309 of IPC, and held, "The investigation in the impugned FIR is at its infancy stage and this court cannot at this stage marshal and scan the evidence so far collected by the investigating agency and ascertain its genuineness and credibility qua the accusation foisted on the petitioner and instead it would be appropriate and in the fitness of things to leave it open to the investigating agency to investigate the case as the matter requires investigation as the charge is levelled against the police and if the FIR is quashed at this stage then the investigating agency will have no opportunity to go into the matter."

Cause Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).13751-13752/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order