HC refuses to quash 1994 encounter chargesheet, trial subject to AFSPA sanction

01/09/2026

JAMMU, Aug 31: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash a chargesheet against four former CRPF personnel in a 1994 case relating to the death of a civilian during an alleged encounter in Bhaderwah, observing that disputed questions of fact could not be examined at the stage of consideration of charge and discharge.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismis-sed the petition filed by Bhola Ram Singh and three other former CRPF personnel, while directing that further proceedings before the trial court shall remain subject to production of the requisite prosecution sanction under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990.
The case pertains to an operation conducted by personnel of 120 Battalion, CRPF, at Bhaderwah on December 31, 1994. According to the petitioners, militants opened fire on security personnel during a search operation at the house of Bilal Ahmed Butt, resulting in the deaths of two militants, a CRPF constable and Butt.
An FIR registered immediately after the incident recorded Butt's death as having occurred during the crossfire.
However, a second FIR was registered on June 1, 1995, following a complaint by Butt's mother, who alleged that her son had been taken out of the house and shot dead after the encounter had ended.
The second case was initially closed as "not admitted", but the Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah subsequently directed further investigation. A chargesheet was thereafter filed against the CRPF personnel for offences including murder, house trespass and unlawful assembly under the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the chargesheet, primarily contending that registration of the second FIR in respect of the same incident was impermissible and that their prosecution was barred in the absence of prior sanction of the Central Government under AFSPA.
Rejecting the plea concerning the second FIR, the High Court observed that the two versions of the incident raised disputed questions of fact which could only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial.
The court noted that while one version suggested that Butt was killed in crossfire during the encounter, the other alleged that he was taken outside and shot after the encounter had ended. Determination of the truth of either version would require examination of witnesses and other evidence, the court said.
The High Court held that such an exercise could not be undertaken while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, as doing so would amount to conducting a "mini-trial" at the pre-trial stage.
On the question of sanction, the court noted that Doda district had been declared a disturbed area at the relevant time and AFSPA was applicable to the CRPF personnel posted in Bhaderwah.
The court held that the criminal proceedings could proceed only subject to the competent authority granting the mandatory prosecution sanction under Section 7 of AFSPA.
It clarified that the chargesheet could not be quashed merely on the ground that sanction had not yet been produced, and the prosecution must be given an opportunity to obtain and place the requisite sanction before the trial court.
If the competent authority grants the sanction, the trial court may proceed with the case and bring the proceedings to their logical conclusion in accordance with law, the court said.
The court was also informed that two of the four petitioners had died during the pendency of the proceedings.
A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, for information and compliance.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty