The Court reaffirmed that police are duty-bound under Section 154 CrPC to register an FIR on receiving information of a cognizable offence, irrespective of administrative forwarding by an Executive Magistrate, and that a criminal investigation is not precluded merely because the dispute also has civil aspects. The judgment upholds established precedent, serving as binding authority on subordinate courts regarding the scope and limitations of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in quashing an FIR.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/686/2023 of Abdul Qayoom Vs U T of J and K Th SHO Police Station Rajouri and Another |
| CNR | JKHC020043572023 |
| Date of Registration | 17-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Interpretation of Section 154 and Section 482 CrPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment holds that the police officer’s duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, regardless of who forwards the information. The mere administrative forwarding of a complaint by an Executive Magistrate to the police does not amount to a judicial order and does not vitiate registration of FIR. The coexistence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if ingredients of a cognizable offence are disclosed. The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash FIRs at the threshold if allegations are not inherently absurd or totally unsubstantiated. The court must not enter into an inquiry on merits or sufficiency of evidence at this stage. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court emphasized the statutory mandate under Section 154 CrPC established by Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari. It reaffirmed the principle that registration of an FIR on allegations of cognizable offences is mandatory and not subject to judicial or executive discretion. Precedents clarify that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist where criminality is disclosed. The administrative act of forwarding a complaint is not equivalent to a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0057/2023 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, arising from ongoing ancestral property disputes. The FIR was registered after a complaint alleging forgery of revenue records was forwarded by an Executive Magistrate to the SHO. The petitioner argued the registration process was without jurisdiction and constituted abuse of process; the State contended registration was lawful as complaint disclosed cognizable offences. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, by analogy, courts outside Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that merely forwarding a complaint by an Executive Magistrate to the police does not vitiate the registration of FIR if information about a cognizable offence is made out.
- Emphasizes police’s statutory duty to register FIRs on receipt of such information, irrespective of the source or forwarding authority.
- Clarifies that the existence of a parallel civil remedy does not bar registration or prosecution of a criminal case where criminal ingredients are prima facie disclosed.
- Law re-stated that Section 482 CrPC powers to quash criminal proceedings are to be exercised sparingly, only where allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or manifestly mala fide.
- Cautions that courts should not assess the sufficiency of evidence or prematurely conduct a trial at the quashment stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by outlining that under Section 154(1) CrPC, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR on receipt of information revealing a cognizable offence, with no discretion in such cases. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari, which leaves little room for preliminary inquiry unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- It was clarified that an Executive Magistrate lacks judicial authority under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct investigation; however, the forwarding of a complaint by the Executive Magistrate—without any order to register an FIR—is a permissible administrative action that does not vitiate ensuing registration.
- The court further relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, holding that the involvement of a property dispute and ongoing civil cases does not preclude registration and investigation of cognizable offences such as forgery and cheating.
- Reference was made to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the limited grounds for quashing FIRs. Powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be wielded sparingly and not as a substitute for a full-scale trial except where a clearly mala fide or manifestly absurd case is presented.
- On facts, as the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences under the IPC, judicial interference under Section 482 CrPC was unwarranted.
- No evidence of mala fide or abuse of process being apparent on record, the court declined to quash the FIR.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The FIR was filed as a misuse of criminal process to settle a civil dispute about ancestral property, constituting an abuse of law.
- Executive Magistrate has no legal authority under CrPC to direct registration of FIR; such powers are reserved for Judicial Magistrates under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 CrPC.
- Impugned FIR arose only from the Executive Magistrate’s unlawful direction; therefore, registration is without jurisdiction and stands vitiated.
- Even if FIR allegations are accepted, no ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC are made out.
- Referenced Supreme Court decisions emphasizing limited grounds for quashing FIRs, especially where cases are civil in nature.
- Requested quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Respondent (State):
- The Executive Magistrate did not direct registration but merely forwarded the complaint for action under law.
- FIR was registered by the SHO independently based on the information of a cognizable offence, as required by Section 154 CrPC.
- Police have a mandatory duty to register FIRs on receipt of such information regardless of source.
- The referenced Supreme Court precedents concerning Section 156(3) applications are not applicable; facts are distinguishable.
- Existence of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution where criminality is alleged.
- Registration of FIR and investigation are valid and in accordance with legal procedure.
Factual Background
The petitioner and respondent are involved in longstanding civil disputes over ancestral property, with suits pending in various courts. The respondent alleged that the petitioner forged his signature on an affidavit and manipulated revenue records relating to property in Rajouri. Based on a written complaint forwarded by the Executive Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajouri, FIR No. 0057/2023 was registered on 07.02.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of this FIR on the ground that it was rooted in a civil dispute and the registration process was jurisdictionally flawed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 154 CrPC: Interpreted to mean that police must register FIRs on receipt of information of a cognizable offence without discretion. Judgment relied heavily on this mandatory aspect and Supreme Court’s exposition in Lalita Kumari.
- Section 156(3) CrPC: Clarified that only Judicial Magistrates, not Executive Magistrates, are empowered to direct investigation. The forwarding of complaints by the Executive Magistrate was not tantamount to an order under this section.
- Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC: Allegedly attracted by the facts as presented in the FIR, warranting investigation regardless of parallel civil proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established Supreme Court precedent on mandatory registration of FIRs for cognizable offences and limited scope of quashment at the pre-trial stage.