Court directs registration of FIR against DySP, SHO over alleged assault, obstruction of duty

Directs DySP-level probe into allegations

08/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 7: The Court of City Judge/JMIC Jammu has directed the registration of an FIR on a complaint alleging assault, abuse, wrongful restraint, intimidation and obstruction in the discharge of public duties by a police officer and other personnel, while directing that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP).
The order was passed by Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, City Judge/JMIC, Jammu, on an application filed by Azhar Khan, through Senior Advocate Aseem Sawhney.
The court has specifically directed the SHO, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. It has also directed SSP Jammu to ensure compliance with the order and submit a compliance report before the court.
The application was filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking directions for registration of an FIR against the proposed accused and for investigation into the allegations made by the applicant.
The case pertains to an alleged incident of November 10, 2025, when the applicant had gone to Police Station Gandhi Nagar in connection with an election-related matter. The applicant alleged that during the incident, police officials, including then SDPO City South Jammu Sunil Singh Jasrotia and his police escort, used physical force against him and allegedly abused, threatened and restrained him.
According to the material discussed in the order, the applicant alleged that he was obstructed while performing public duties and that the conduct of the police personnel resulted in injuries and other consequences. The allegations were supported by reference to CCTV footage and statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry.
The court took note of CCTV footage and statements of independent witnesses while examining whether the allegations disclosed commission of cognizable offences warranting registration of an FIR.
The order records that during the course of the preliminary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer visited the spot of the incident, examined the general public and independent witnesses and analysed available CCTV footage. Statements of personnel associated with the incident were also recorded.
The court considered the material collected during the preliminary inquiry in the context of the allegations levelled by the applicant. It also examined the conduct attributed to the police personnel at the spot and the circumstances in which the alleged incident took place.
The court noted that the matter involved allegations concerning police personnel and therefore the procedure prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960, was also relevant.
A substantial portion of the order deals with Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, concerning investigation into complaints against police officers. The court examined the manner in which such complaints are required to be dealt with and the role of the competent police authorities.
The court also considered the law relating to registration of FIRs and preliminary inquiries, referring to judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts on the issue.
The court emphasised that a preliminary inquiry cannot be used to indefinitely avoid registration of an FIR when the information placed before the police discloses a cognizable offence.
The order discusses the scope of a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 of the BNSS and notes that its purpose is to determine whether the information reveals a cognizable offence requiring registration of an FIR. The court also referred to judicial precedents dealing with the distinction between a preliminary inquiry and a full-fledged investigation.
The court examined the contention that the allegations were either disputed or required further verification and considered whether the material collected during the preliminary inquiry was sufficient to warrant registration of a case.
It also considered the allegations concerning the role of the police officer and the alleged use of force at the site of the incident.
The court referred to CCTV material as an important part of the record. The order states that the CCTV footage had been examined during the preliminary inquiry and that the incident was also supported by statements of persons who were present or had knowledge of the occurrence.
After considering the complaint, ATR, statements, CCTV footage and the applicable legal provisions, the court came to the conclusion that the matter required a proper investigation and could not be brought to an end merely on the basis of the preliminary inquiry.
The court also dealt with the question of whether separate complaints arising from the same transaction could be investigated together. In this context, the court examined the material concerning the complaint made by the applicant as well as the counter-version concerning the incident.
The order records that a complaint had also been made regarding the conduct of the applicant in connection with the same transaction and that an FIR had been registered in relation to that aspect. The court considered the legal position concerning cross-cases and the need to examine the entire incident in its proper context.
The court observed that the allegations and counter-allegations arising out of the same transaction required examination through a lawful investigation and that the registration of the applicant's FIR could not simply be declined on that basis.
The court further directed that the investigation into the applicant's complaint should be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of DySP, thereby ensuring that the allegations against police personnel are examined at an appropriate level.
The court also considered the statutory and procedural safeguards applicable to complaints against police officials and referred to the requirement of conducting such an investigation fairly and independently.
The complaint had alleged, among other things, that the applicant was physically assaulted, abused and threatened and that his movement and discharge of public duties were obstructed. The court examined these allegations along with the material collected during the preliminary inquiry rather than deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations at the stage of directing registration of the FIR.
It also clarified the distinction between registration of an FIR and determination of guilt, with the latter being a matter to be established during investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.
The court considered the relevant provisions of the BNSS, the J&K Police Rules and the judicial precedents cited by the parties before arriving at its conclusions.
In its operative directions, the court ordered the SHO, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, to register the FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with law. The SSP Jammu was directed to ensure compliance and submit a report to the court.
The court further directed the SSP Jammu to take appropriate action against the concerned SHO for the failure to register the FIR as required under law and to ensure that the investigation is entrusted to an officer not below the rank of DySP.
The order also requires the investigation to be conducted fairly and impartially and in accordance with the directions contained therein.
The court's decision came after examination of the application, the Action Taken Report, the preliminary inquiry material, CCTV footage, statements of witnesses and the legal submissions concerning registration of FIRs and investigation into allegations against police personnel.
The court also considered several Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited during the proceedings, including decisions concerning the scope of preliminary inquiry, mandatory registration of FIRs in cases involving cognizable offences and investigation of complaints against police officials.
The 33-page order was pronounced on September 5, 2026, by Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, City Judge/JMIC, Jammu.
The directions mean that the allegations raised by Azhar Khan are now required to be formally investigated through registration of an FIR and a DySP-level investigation. The court's order, however, does not constitute a finding of guilt against any of the accused and the allegations remain subject to investigation and further proceedings in accordance with law.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty