# Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Etc

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 876
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-21
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/khursheed-ahmad-chohan-v-union-of-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmir-and-ors-etc-38399
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Issue arose as to whether the facts and circumstances disclosed
in the complaint, 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; and whether FIR registered
against the appellant u/s.309 IPC should be quashed.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Constitution of
India - Art.21 - Custodial torture - Appellant-police constable
called to report to the office of Senior Superintendent of
Police in connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics
matter against him - Thereafter, was illegally detained and
was subjected to brutal custodial torture for six days - He
sustained grievous injuries including castration of his genital
regions - FIR against police officials not registered - Appellant
sought registration of FIR against the police personnel and
transfer of investigation to CBI - High Court dismissed the
petitions - Correctness:
Held: Issuance of directions to CBI for registration of RC in relation
to the incidents of custodial violence and illegal detention of the
appellant, constitution of SIT for investigation and to conduct
comprehensive inquiry into systematic issues - Medical findingsgrievous injuries, complete genital mutilation, systematic beatings,
and torture marks, taken in conjunction with the appellant's forced
detention, part of which was illegal, clearly establish the commission
* Author
1296
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of cognizable offences by persons in authority, making registration
of FIR not merely advisable but mandatory - Failure of local police
authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable
offences supported by compelling medical evidence constitutes a
direct violation of the appellant's fundamental rights u/Art.14 and
21 - 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 resulted in the denial of justice to the appellant who
is the victim of custodial torture - Considering the unprecedented
gravity of the custodial torture, the systematic cover-up orchestrated
by local police machinery, 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 State, transfer of investigation to CBI directed - By
directing the SSP, who summoned the appellant, just to conduct
an enquiry at such a belated stage, combined with the pendency
of NDPS cases, creates a conflict of interest, making it impossible
for any fair investigation to be conducted at the local level - Only
investigation by an independent agency-CBI can restore public faith
in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanising crime
does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges
without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts - Majesty of law
demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality
in investigating such crimes - Hence, transfer of investigation to
CBI becomes not merely advisable but constitutionally imperative
to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law - Compensation
awarded to the appellant - Impugned judgment quashed and set
aside. [Paras 11-14, 27, 38]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Victim-police
personnel subjected to brutal and inhuman custodial torture
leading to complete castration and illegal detention, on
reporting to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police in
connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics matter - FIR
against police officials not registered - Subsequently, police
of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,973 of 79,629. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1295 : 2025 INSC 876
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan
v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3092-3093 of 2025)
21 July 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the facts and circumstances disclosed
in the complaint, 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; and whether FIR registered
against the appellant u/s.309 IPC should be quashed.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Constitution of
India - Art.21 - Custodial torture - Appellant-police constable
called to report to the office of Senior Superintendent of
Police in connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics
matter against him - Thereafter, was illegally detained and
was subjected to brutal custodial torture for six days - He
sustained grievous injuries including castration of his genital
regions - FIR against police officials not registered - Appellant
sought registration of FIR against the police personnel and
transfer of investigation to CBI - High Court dismissed the
petitions - Correctness:
Held: Issuance of directions to CBI for registration of RC in relation
to the incidents of custodial violence and illegal detention of the
appellant, constitution of SIT for investigation and to conduct
comprehensive inquiry into systematic issues - Medical findingsgrievous injuries, complete genital mutilation, systematic beatings,
and torture marks, taken in conjunction with the appellant's forced
detention, part of which was illegal, clearly establish the commission
* Author
1296
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of cognizable offences by persons in authority, making registration
of FIR not merely advisable but mandatory - Failure of local police
authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable
offences supported by compelling medical evidence constitutes a
direct violation of the appellant's fundamental rights u/Art.14 and
21 - 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 resulted in the denial of justice to the appellant who
is the victim of custodial torture - Considering the unprecedented
gravity of the custodial torture, the systematic cover-up orchestrated
by local police machinery, 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 State, transfer of investigation to CBI directed - By
directing the SSP, who summoned the appellant, just to conduct
an enquiry at such a belated stage, combined with the pendency
of NDPS cases, creates a conflict of interest, making it impossible
for any fair investigation to be conducted at the local level - Only
investigation by an independent agency-CBI can restore public faith
in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanising crime
does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges
without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts - Majesty of law
demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality
in investigating such crimes - Hence, transfer of investigation to
CBI becomes not merely advisable but constitutionally imperative
to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law - Compensation
awarded to the appellant - Impugned judgment quashed and set
aside. [Paras 11-14, 27, 38]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Victim-police
personnel subjected to brutal and inhuman custodial torture
leading to complete castration and illegal detention, on
reporting to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police in
connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics matter - FIR
against police officials not registered - Subsequently, police
officials maliciously registered FIR against appellant-victim
u/s.309 IPC - Writ petition by the victim seeking quashing
of the FIR registered against him u/s.309 dismissed - FIR
registered against the victim u/s.309 IPC, if should be quashed
as being manifestly mala fide and constituting an abuse of
the process of law:
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1297
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
Held: Perusal of the contents of FIR reflect that the allegations
made were vague and manifestly contradictory to the established
medical evidence - Stark disparity between the trivial description
of 'cutting his vein' in the FIR and the barbaric reality of complete
castration and systematic torture exposes the mala fide intent
behind registering this counter FIR - 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 - Timing and manner of registration of this FIR, which was a
sequel to the torture incident and in complete disregard of nature,
number and location of injuries caused to the victim, demonstrates
that it was conceived as a pre-emptive defense mechanism rather
than a genuine police action based on a truthful investigation - Not
merely a case of investigative error or overreach, it is a calculated
effort to fabricate charges, distort the narrative, and shield the real
perpetrators of crime of custodial torture - Use of State machinery to
invert the roles of victim and offender represents a grave subversion
of the criminal process and compels the intervention of this Court
to prevent the miscarriage of justice - High Court gravely erred in
declining to exercise its jurisdiction u/s.482 to quash FIR - Faced
with a clear abuse of process, where a custodial torture victim
is falsely implicated to shield the perpetrators, the High Court
was duty bound to intervene - FIR against appellant u/s.309 IPC
quashed. [Paras 31-33]
Compensation - Award of, to victim of brutal and inhuman
custodial torture leading to complete castration:
Held: Where fundamental rights, particularly the right to life
and personal liberty u/Art.21 are violated by State machinery,
appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy -
On facts, injuries caused to the appellant during his illegal
detention, particularly the complete mutilation of his genitalia,
use of pepper/chilly powder and electric shocks on his genitalia,
are grave inhuman torture meted out to the victim while detaining
him illegally - Cumulative effect of all these facts deeply shocking
to the conscience of this Court - Considering the gravity and
magnitude of the custodial torture established through medical
records and institutional apathy that followed, fit case for awarding
compensation to the victim - Violation of Art.21 not only evident
but egregious - Victim-police constable himself, suffered life-
1298
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
debilitating injuries while in custody of fellow state actors, and
despite repeated complaints, no effective redress was provided - In
discharge of the Court's duty to uphold constitutional protections,
the State directed to pay interim compensation of Rupees Fifty
Lakhs to the victim, without prejudice to the victim's right to pursue
further remedies for additional compensation before appropriate
forum - State Government to recover the said amount from the
officials found guilty upon completion of the investigation/disciplinary
proceedings - Constitution of India - Art.21. [Paras 34, 36, 37]
Case Law Cited
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2
SCC 1; State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal (CPDR) [2010] 2 SCR 979 :
(2010) 3 SCC 571; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [2018] 7
SCR 379 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 - followed.
D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 284 :
(1997) 1 SCC 416; Mohd. Anis v. Union of India [1993] Supp. 1
SCR 263 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 145; R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.
(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 143; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi
[1995] Supp. 1 SCR 44 : (1995) 4 SCC 262; Nilabati Behera v.
State of Orissa [1993] 2 SCR 581 : (1993) 2 SCC 746; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1
SCC 335; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana [2006] 2 SCR 67 :
(2006) 3 SCC 178; Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P [2023] 11
SCR 313 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Right to
Information Act, 2005; Mental Healthcare Act, 2017; Constitution
of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967.
List of Keywords
Custodial torture; Barbaric and systematic torture; Registration
of FIR; Transfer of investigation to CBI; Quashing of FIR; Genital
mutilation; Abuse of process of law; Castration; "nemo judex in
causa sua"; Police atrocity; Suicide theory; Systematic cover-up;
Abuse of authority; Institutional bias; Protecting accused police
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1299
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
officers; Independent investigation; Violation of Fundamental
Rights; Human dignity; Victimizing the complainant; Investigative
error or overreach; Illegal detention; Medical evidence of grievous
injuries, including complete genital mutilation; Local police
machinery; Conflict of interest; Castration of his genital regions;
Registration of FIR against the police personnel; Lalita Kumari's
case; Compensation; Victim of brutal and inhuman custodial torture;
Investigation/disciplinary proceedings.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
3092-3093 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2023 of the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in CRM (M) No. 111
and WP(C) No. 592 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ibad Mushtaq,
Ms. Akanksha Rai, Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Hasan Raza Khan.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. A.A.G., Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath
Razdan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.
Heard.
2.
Leave granted.
3.
The present appeals by special leave, arise out of the final judgment
and order dated 18th September, 2023, passed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar1
in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023 connected
1
Hereinafter referred to as 'High Court.'
1300
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2023, whereby the High Court
dismissed the said inter-connected petitions, filed by the appellant
(victim) seeking registration of the FIR against the police personnel;
transfer of the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation2; and
quashing of the FIR filed against the appellant.
Background facts:-
4.
The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals, as
evident from the records, are as follows: -
4.1 The appellant is a police constable in the Department of Police
who, at the time of the alleged incident, was posted at the
District Police Headquarters, Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir.
On 17th February, 2023, the appellant received a signal from
Aijaz Ahmad Naiko, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara,
Jammu and Kashmir, directing him to report to the Office of
the Senior Superintendent of Police on 20th February, 2023,
in connection with an enquiry related to a narcotics matter.
The appellant alleges 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 a 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 26th
February, 2023. At SKIMS, the appellant, who was accompanied
by Asiq Hussain, 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 SubInspector. On the same day, i.e., 26th February, 2023, an
FIR3 was registered against the appellant by Munner Ahmad,
Sub-Inspector and In-Charge, Police Post Tad, Karnah, for
2
Hereinafter referred to as 'CBI.'
3
FIR No. 32 of 2023.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1301
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.4 The contents of the said FIR are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Dear Sir, Details of investigation are as under. At
this time S.I. Muneer Ahmad 108/KP presently posted
as Officer Chowki Police Taad presented himself
before the said Police Station with a written Docket
in order to register it the contents, which are as
under: From Chowki Police Taad Camp JIC Kupwara
Time 11.20 hrs. Dated 26.02.2023. To SHO Police
Station Kuwpara. Dear Sir, the brief Contents of the
case under FIR No.17 of the year 2023 under the
offence 08/21-29 NDPS Act Police Station Kamah
are as under. Mr. Khursheed Ahmad Chohan (sic)
son of Late Ghulam Mustafa Chohan (sic) resident
of Abkote Kamah at present Housing colony Ompora
Budgam who is an employee of the Police department
working as SG constable and is presently posted at
District Baramulla was found involved in the said case
under discussion in the Police department and in this
connection, the said person was called in JIC Kupwara
for investigation. Today at about 11: 15 noon, the
said person was lying in a bed in a residential Bark
at JIC and tried to suicide by cutting his vein with a
shogun blade while covering himself in a blanket, and
the said person was taken to hospital in an injurious
condition for hospitalization with the help of other
personal and Police staff present in the Bark and in
the said action, cognizance of the police has been
found. Hence through the medium of said Docket it
is requested that the matter may be recorded in the
Daily Diary and action in the matter be taken. Sd/
in English of SI Muneer Ahmad 108/KP I/C PP TAD
CAMP JIC Kupwara."
[emphasis supplied]
4
Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC.'
1302
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.2 Upon learning of the appellant's condition, his wife, Rubina
Aktar, immediately approached Station House Officer5, Police
Station, 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 the pleas
of the lady. 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, through her Advocate, served a legal notice
dated 2nd March, 2023 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.
4.3 Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, the appellant filed a
Writ Petition No. 592 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir seeking,
inter alia, (a) a direction to the SHO, Police Station, Kupwara,
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir to immediately register an FIR
based on the complaint and supporting documents sent to him
via registered post; (b) a direction to Deputy Inspector General
of Police, North Circle (Kupwara/Baramulla) to constitute a
Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Gazetted Officer
and assisted by two senior officers to conduct a thorough
investigation into the matter, thereby ensuring that the interests
of justice are served; and (c) in the alternative, and if the
Hon'ble High Court deemed it appropriate, given the gravity of
the offences and the potential influence of the accused police
officials, a direction to refer the matter to the CBI to ensure a
fair and impartial investigation. Parallelly, the appellant filed
a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being CRM (M) No. 111 of
2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19736, seeking quashing of FIR No. 32 of 2023 dated 26th
February, 2023 filed against the appellant, on the ground that
the allegations made in the FIR were inherently improbable,
mala fide, and an abuse of the process of law. It was contended
5
Hereinafter referred to as 'SHO.'.
6
For short, "CrPC".
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1303
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
that the FIR had been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass
the appellant and settle personal scores. The appellant also
submitted that even if the allegations were taken at face value,
they did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
4.4 The High Court vide order dated 18th September, 2023, disposed
of both petitions vide a common judgment. In the writ petition
seeking registration of the FIR, the Court directed that a detailed
preliminary enquiry be conducted by the Senior Superintendent
of Police into the allegations. If the said enquiry substantiated
the claims, an FIR was to be registered, and the investigation
was to be entrusted to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. In
the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the
FIR, the High Court held that at this early stage, it would not
be appropriate to quash the FIR, as the investigation was in
its infancy and should be allowed to proceed to ascertain the
truth. Accordingly, the High Court rejected the quashing petition
and allowed the investigation in FIR No. 32 of 2023 to continue
unhindered.
4.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court, the appellant
has filed the present appeals by way of special leave before
this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
5.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
and fervently submitted that the present 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. In this regard, he has
advanced the following submissions to urge:
5.1 The present case involves grave allegations of custodial torture
which the perpetrators tried to cover up as a suicide attempt
by the appellant. A close examination of the timeline and the
nature of injuries suffered by the appellant cast serious doubt
on the respondent's narrative. Learned senior counsel submitted
1304
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that the appellant was summoned on 17th February, 2023 and
remained in custody from 20th to 26th February, 2023. However,
FIR No. 17 of 2023, under which the appellant was purportedly
summoned, was registered only on 23rd February, 2023, three
days after his detention had commenced. This temporal gap
renders the appellant's detention from 20th to 22nd February, 2023
prima facie illegal ab-initio, as it was not backed by any lawful
authority. Learned counsel further urged that the medical report
from SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar categorically records grievous
injuries that are incompatible with any form of self-inflicted
harm to support the suicide theory, including a 10 cm x 5 cm
laceration on the scrotum with both testicles surgically removed,
bruises on the buttocks extending to the thighs, tenderness on
the palms and soles indicative of blunt trauma, the presence of
vegetative particles in the rectum, and multiple fractures. These
injuries, inflicted on the appellant while he was continuously
kept under illegal detention at the Joint Interrogation Centre,
Kupwara under the exclusive control of police personnel, are
consistent with established methods of custodial torture designed
to minimise external bruising and detection. On the other hand,
the post facto registration of the FIR7 dated 23rd February, 2023,
and the implausibility of the suicide theory strongly suggest an
orchestrated attempt to shield the perpetrators and to legitimise
an otherwise apparent incident of unlawful custody and brutal
custodial torture.
5.2 Learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that despite
the appellant and his wife making persistent and desperate
attempts to approach various authorities seeking justice for
the barbaric custodial torture inflicted upon the appellant, there
has been a complete and systematic denial of justice at every
level. Immediately after coming to know about the condition
of the appellant, his wife filed a complaint on 1st March, 2023,
followed by a formal legal notice through counsel on 2nd March
2023, vividly detailing the brutal custodial torture and seeking
registration of FIR against the perpetrators of the heinous crime.
Learned senior counsel emphasised that despite these timely
complaints that clearly made out cognizable offences punishable
7
FIR No. 17 of 2023.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1305
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
under Sections 307, 330, 331, 326 and other provisions of the
IPC, the authorities turned a blind eye and deaf ear and instead
of registering an FIR against the involved police officials, they
maliciously registered a patently false FIR No. 32 of 2023 against
the victim (appellant) under Section 309 of the IPC. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that the appellant's wife was
compelled to move an application under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, to obtain his Medical Reports from SKIMS, SouraSrinagar, as even basic medical records were being withheld
to suppress evidence of the brutal custodial torture. Left with
no recourse, the appellant was constrained to move the High
Court seeking registration of an FIR. Despite the High Court
acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and expressing
sufficient doubts regarding the official narrative, it stopped short
of granting substantive relief and instead directed a preliminary
enquiry by the very officer whose subordinates were implicated
in the alleged custodial violence.
5.3 The High Court, in the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate that
Section 309 of the IPC has been rendered completely redundant
by virtue of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 20178.
Learned Counsel urged that Section 115 of the MH Act creates
an irrebuttable presumption that any person who attempts to
commit suicide shall be presumed to be under severe stress and
shall not be tried and punished under Section 309 of the IPC.
Learned senior counsel, with utmost vehemence, urged that this
position has been categorically settled by this Court in Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India9, wherein it was categorically
held that Section 309 of the IPC has become largely ineffective,
and instead of being a criminal offence, the Government has
an affirmative duty to provide care and rehabilitation. Hence,
the FIR No. 32 of 2023 is nothing but a fabricated and bogus
case registered merely to create a false defence for the errant
police officers, and the same is liable to be quashed as it fails
to disclose any cognizable offence in view of the Navtej Johar
(supra) and the provisions of the MH Act.
8
Hereinafter referred to as 'MH Act.'
9
(2018) 10 SCC 1 at Para 247.
1306
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5.4 That the learned High Court has committed a grave error in law
by failing to recognise the clear and egregious violation of the
appellant's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and committed grave injustice by merely
ordering a preliminary enquiry rather than mandatorily directing
the registration of an FIR. The settled position of law, as laid
down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P.10, unequivocally mandates the registration of an FIR upon
disclosure of a cognizable offence, particularly where public
officials are alleged to have committed such offences. In the
present case, the appellant's wife, Rubina Aktar, submitted a
written complaint on 1st March, 2023, within three days of the
incident, clearly narrating acts of custodial torture and grievous
assault amounting to grave cognizable offences. In view of
this, there existed no legal basis for deferring the registration
of the FIR or substituting the statutory mandate under Section
154 CrPC (corresponding Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 202311) with a preliminary inquiry. The High
Court's failure to adhere to this binding precedent not only
dilutes the legal safeguards against custodial violence but also
effectively sanctions immunity for the illegal acts committed by
the errant officials under the colour of public authority, thereby
undermining the appellant's fundamental right to equality before
law and protection of life and personal liberty.
5.5 That the unprecedented severity of the custodial torture inflicted
upon the appellant, who is a serving constable in the Jammu &
Kashmir Police, and the systematic cover-up orchestrated by
the local police apparatus, necessitates immediate transfer of
investigation to the CBI in order to ensure a fair, impartial, and
credible inquiry. The High Court's direction, in the impugned
order, entrusting the inquiry to the very Senior Superintendent
of Police, whose signal dated 17th February, 2023 led to
the appellant's illegal summoning and subsequent torture,
constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice,
rendering the inquiry inherently biased and devoid of credibility.
For over a year, the appellant and his wife have been compelled
10
(2014) 2 SCC 1 at Para 119.
11
Hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS.'
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1307
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
to approach multiple forums merely to seek the registration of
an FIR. In these deeply disturbing circumstances, only a CBI
investigation can vindicate the rule of law, restore public trust
and confidence in the system, and ensure that the perpetrators
of such inhuman and shocking offences do not go unpunished.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
implored the Court to accept these appeals, set aside the impugned
judgment and prayed that this is a fit case warranting exercise of
this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 read with
Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct registration of
the FIR against the respondents and transfer the said investigation
to the CBI, in the interest of justice and to uphold the rule of law.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
6.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/
Union Territory, has opposed the submissions advanced by learned
senior counsel for the appellant. He presented the following pertinent
submissions imploring this Court to dismiss the present appeals:
6.1 That the appellant's allegations of custodial torture are nothing
but a bundle of 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. He urged that the appellant had complete access to all
areas within the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara including the
bathroom from where he obtained a shaving razor blade on the
morning of 26th February, 2023. The CCTV footage corroborates
that the appellant was seen walking normally with other jawans
until 09:00 am, after which he entered the barracks and was not
seen until 11:15 am, which was when the other constables had
discovered his injuries. The forensic evidence further supports
this version; the FSL report confirms that DNA extracted from
blood stains on the seized razor and mattress matched the
appellant's blood sample, prima facie establishing that the razor
was used by the appellant himself. The medical officer at Sub
District Hospital, Kupwara has categorically stated in his signed
statement that the superficial cuts on the appellant's right arm
were consistent with persons having suicidal tendencies, and no
1308
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
other injuries were found beyond those mentioned in the injury
form. Learned counsel urged that the allegations of custodial
torture are entirely fabricated and malicious, designed solely to
prejudice the investigation of grave offence punishable under
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 198512 in
which the appellant was found involved.
6.2 Rebutting the appellant's claims of illegal detention, the learned
counsel urged that the entire procedure was a part of lawful
investigation. The appellant was initially summoned through
proper channels, a signal was flashed by District Police Office
Kupwara, to District Police Office Baramulla on 14th February,
2023, followed by another signal on 17th February, 2023, directing
the appellant to report to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Kupwara on 20th February, 2023, for questioning in connection
with FIR No. 01 of 2023 registered on 1st January, 2023 under
Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and under Sections 13,
18, 20, 23, and 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.13
Learned counsel urged that the appellant was not under any form
of custody but was asked to remain available for investigation
purposes due to his suspected involvement in serious offences of
narcotic trade. The appellant, being hailing from Tehsil Karnah (67
kilometres away) and posted in District Baramulla (49 kilometres
away), chose to stay at JIC Kupwara for convenience during the
winter season. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant's
assertion about the fact that he had been summoned in relation
to FIR No. 17 of 2023 before its registration is misconceived
because he was actually summoned in connection with FIR
No. 01 of 2023, and during this investigation, fresh evidence
emerged leading to registration of FIR No. 17 of 2023 on 23rd
February, 2023 under Sections 8, 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act,
wherein accused Farooq Hussain, who was arrested followed by
recovery of 2.674 kilograms of Heroin, disclosed the appellant's
involvement. The District Superintendent of Police, Baramulla
and Deputy Inspector General North Kashmir Range were
telephonically informed about the investigational developments,
demonstrating proper procedural compliance.
12
Hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'
13
Hereinafter referred to as 'UAP Act'
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1309
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
6.3 The appellant's reliance on Section 115 of the MH Act, raising
the presumption of severe stress is rebuttable and has been
negated in this case. Learned counsel urged that until 25th
February, 2023, the appellant was found to be hale and hearty,
and showed no abnormality in behaviour which might suggest
some mental distress that could lead to attempted suicide.
The initial medical examination report prima facie negates
the presumption of severe stress sought to be drawn under
Section 115 of the MH Act. Learned counsel contended that the
appellant's suicide attempt was not driven by mental illness but
was a calculated move to derail the investigation of the serious
NDPS cases (i.e., FIR Nos. 01 of 2023 and 17 of 2023) in which
his involvement was duly established. Learned counsel urged
that FIR No. 32 of 2023 under Section 309 of the IPC is validly
registered as the evidence clearly establishes a deliberate
suicide attempt to evade investigation rather than any mental
health crisis, making the case fall outside the protective ambit
of the MH Act.
On these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent/Union
Territory contended that the present appeals should be dismissed,
and in view of the extensive preliminary enquiry already conducted,
the prayer for transfer of the case to the CBI is unwarranted and
ought to be declined.
Discussion and Analysis: -
7.
We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. With the
assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the
material placed on record.
8.
The primary issues that arise for our consideration in the present
case are as follows:
I.
Whether the facts and circumstances disclosed in the complaint
filed by the appellant's wife dated 1st March 2023, supported
by compelling medical evidence of grievous injuries, including
complete genital mutilation, mandatorily required registration
of an FIR?
II.
Whether the gravity of the alleged custodial torture, the
systematic cover-up by local police machinery, and the inherent
1310
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
conflict of interest arising from the pendency of cases punishable
under NDPS Act against the appellant necessitate transfer of
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation to ensure
a fair, impartial and credible inquiry?
III.
Whether FIR No. 32 of 2023 dated 26th February, 2023,
registered against the appellant under Section 309 of IPC should
be quashed as being manifestly mala fide and constituting an
abuse of the process of law?
9.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the appellant, who is serving
as a constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, 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 20th
February, 2023. It is admitted that between 20th February and 26th
February, 2023, the appellant sustained numerous injuries including
castration of his genital regions and was admitted to SKIMS
Hospital at 2:48 pm on 26th February, 2023. It is also undisputed
that the dismembered genitalia were brought to the hospital in a
separate plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector, a fact that shocks our
conscience. The medical documents issued from SKIMS, SouraSrinagar conclusively establish the horrific nature of the injuries
which inter alia include, complete mutilation of genitalia with both
testicles removed, a 10 cm x 5 cm laceration on the scrotum,
tenderness on palms and feet, bruises on buttocks extending to
thighs, multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and fractures
throughout the body. The Discharge Summary further provides
unequivocal medical evidence that the appellant underwent an
extensive surgical procedure, including "exploration and repair of
corporal bodies with end-to-end anastomosis of urethra, ligation
of spermatic cord, repair of scrotal laceration, and debridement
of necrotic tissue," and was discharged on 2nd March, 2023. The
appellant's wife, Rubina Aktar, had filed a complaint dated 1st March,
2023, within three days of the incident levelling clear allegations,
disclosing cognizable offences committed by the police personnel.
However, no action was taken upon the said complaint. These facts,
standing alone and uncontroverted, establish a prima facie case
of the most heinous form of custodial torture and the total apathy
of the local police officials in taking action against the perpetrators
of custodial violence.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1311
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
I. On the Issue of Registration of an FIR
10. The question of mandatory registration of FIR has been conclusively
settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra),
which laid down unambiguous principles that brook no exception or
deviation. The Constitution Bench categorically held that registration
of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC (corresponding
Section 173 of BNSS) when information disclosing the commission
of a cognizable offence is received by the police, and no preliminary
inquiry is required or permissible in such cases. The Constitution
Bench emphasised that the police have no discretion in the matter
of registration of an FIR once alleged facts disclose commission of
cognizable offences. The relevant paragraphs and guidelines framed
in Lalita Kumari (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
"119. But, if the information given clearly mentions the
commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other
option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations
are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such
as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the
information is genuine, whether the information is credible,
etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during
the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of
FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information
given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. If, after investigation, the information given is
found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute
the complainant for filing a false FIR."
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section
154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission
of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
1312
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint,
a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.
It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint
and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be
taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence."
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. In the present case, the allegations made by the appellant and his
wife unequivocally disclose the commission of cognizable offences
perpetrating from custodial torture. On 20th February, 2023, the appellant reported at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara, where
he alleges illegal detention for six days without any formal arrest or
FIR. During this period of alleged unlawful custody, he claims to have
been subjected to brutal physical torture. Furthermore, the medical
reports issued from SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar provide concrete proof
of grievous injuries, including complete genital mutilation, systematic
beatings, and torture marks, ruling out the scope for subjective interpretation or discretionary exercise.