Supreme Court of India
KHURSHEED AHMAD CHOHANversusUNION OF TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 876
- Decided
- 21 July 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Court held that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences requiring FIR registration, the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, the counter‑FIR is an abuse of process and is quashed, and compensation is awarded.
Summary
The appellant, a police constable, was summoned to the Senior Superintendent's office and allegedly detained illegally for six days during which he suffered severe genital mutilation and other injuries, as confirmed by medical reports. His wife complained to the police seeking registration of an FIR against the officials responsible, but the police instead filed a counter‑FIR under Section 309 IPC alleging a suicide attempt. The High Court refused to register the FIR and declined to transfer the case to the CBI, prompting the appellant to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, mandating immediate FIR registration, and that the local police’s involvement created a conflict of interest requiring investigation by the CBI. It also quashed the counter‑FIR as a mala‑fide abuse of process and awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the victim. The appeals were allowed and the High Court order set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint disclosing custodial torture and genital mutilation mandates mandatory registration of an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the investigation should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation due to conflict of interest and systematic cover‑up by local police.
- Whether the FIR registered against the appellant under Section 309 IPC is mala‑fide and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether monetary compensation is appropriate for violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 173, s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 482, s. 528
- Constitution of Indias. Art.136, s. Art.14, s. Art.142, s. Art.21, s. Art.32
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 309
- Mental Healthcare Act, 2017s. 115
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 21, s. 29, s. 8
- Right to Information Act, 2005
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s. 13, s. 18, s. 20, s. 23, s. 38
Headnote
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 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
Subjects
Custodial tortureBarbaric and systematic tortureRegistration of FIRTransfer of investigation to CBIQuashing of FIRGenital mutilationAbuse of process of lawCastrationnemo judex in causa suaPolice atrocitySuicide theorySystematic cover‑upAbuse of authorityInstitutional biasIndependent investigationViolation of fundamental rightsHuman dignityVictimising the complainantIllegal detentionMedical evidence of grievous injuries
Judgment
[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 findings-
grievous 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 Sub-
Inspector. On the same day, i.e., 26 th 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, Soura-
Srinagar, 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 26 th 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, Soura-
Srinagar 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 appel-
lant 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 inter-
pretation or discretionary exercise. These medical findings, taken in
conjunction with the appellant’s forced detention at the Joint Inter-
rogation Centre, Kupwara from 20th to 26th February 2023, part of
which was undoubtedly illegal, clearly establish the commission of
cognizable offences by persons in authority, making registration of
FIR not merely advisable but mandatory under the Lalita Kumari
(supra) framework.
12. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra) specifically carved
out exceptions where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted but
categorically excluded cases involving allegations against public
servants, discharging their official capacity, particularly in matters
involving custodial violence. The Court recognised that allowing a
preliminary inquiry in such cases would enable institutional cover-
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1313
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
up and defeat the very purpose of criminal law, designed to protect
citizens from state excesses. In the present case, the allegations
of custodial violence are levelled against police officers of the Joint
Interrogation Centre, Kupwara who illegally detained the appellant and
allegedly subjected him to systematic torture resulting in permanent
disability and trauma. The nature of custodial violence, where the
victim is completely at the mercy of state authorities, demands
immediate registration of an FIR being a constitutional mandate
required to preserve evidence, protect witnesses, and ensure that
the institutional machinery does not get time and opportunity to
fabricate defence or destroy incriminating material.
13. The 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 under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. The High Court committed a grave error in law by failing to exercise
the writ jurisdiction and in refusing to apply the mandatory principles
laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra).
Instead of ordering immediate registration of FIR, the High Court
directed the very same Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara
who had issued the Signal dated 17th February, 2023 summoning the
appellant and under whose jurisdiction the alleged torture occurred, to
conduct an inquiry into his own subordinates’ actions. This direction
constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of natural
justice encapsulated in the Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua”
(no one should be a judge in his own cause). The 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 has resulted in the
denial of justice to the appellant who is the victim of custodial torture.
II. On the Issue of Transfer of the Investigation to CBI
15. It is a settled position of law that the credibility of an investigation
agency should be both impeachable and unquestionable. The power
to transfer investigations to a certain investigating agency must be
sparingly used in the interest of justice and to maintain public trust
in the institution. If the investigating agency is privy to the dispute,
it may raise doubts on the credibility of the investigation and thus,
would be a valid ground to transfer the investigation. In this regard,
1314 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
gainful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Mohd.
Anis v. Union of India14, wherein it was held as follows:
“5. … Fair and impartial investigation by an independent
agency, not involved in the controversy, is the demand of
public interest. If the investigation is by an agency which
is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of the
investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary to the
public interest as well as the interest of justice.” (SCC p.
148, para 5) “2. … Doubts were expressed regarding the
fairness of the investigation as it was feared that as the
local police was alleged to be involved in the encounters,
the investigation by an officer of the U.P. Cadre may not
be impartial.”
16. Similarly, this Court in the case of R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.15,
noted that:
“2. … We have perused the events that have taken place
since the incidents but we are refraining from entering
upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party
but we think that since the accusations are directed
against the local police personnel it would be desirable
to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like
the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned
including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured
that an independent agency is looking into the matter
and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation
credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out
the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the
allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind
that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as
well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation
to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do
hope that it would complete the investigation at an early
date so that those involved in the occurrences, one way or
the other, may be brought to book. We direct accordingly.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14 (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 145.
15 (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 143.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1315
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
17. Thus, the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is not to be
exercised as a matter of course. The Constitution Bench in State of
West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal (CPDR)16, examined the circumstances under which
Constitutional Courts may invoke their jurisdiction to direct a CBI
investigation. The Court observed that while the power to transfer
investigation to the CBI must be exercised with circumspection and
only in exceptional circumstances, such power is nonetheless available
to be exercised when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice
or to prevent infringement of fundamental rights. The Court further
held that such extraordinary jurisdiction may be invoked to ensure
a fair and impartial investigation where state machinery appears to
be ineffective, biased, or complicit. The relevant observations from
the said judgment are extracted below:
“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles
32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations
on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very
plenitude of the power under the said articles requires
great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of
issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can
be laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of
routine or merely because a party has levelled some
allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations
or where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental
rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number
of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult
to properly investigate even serious cases and in the
16 (2010) 3 SCC 571.
1316 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. The settled principle of law that emerges from the abovementioned
decisions is that the power to transfer the investigation of a criminal
case to the CBI is an extraordinary measure, which must be exercised
sparingly with great caution, and only in rare and exceptional
circumstances. This jurisdiction must not be invoked lightly or in
a routine fashion, but only where the facts of the case disclose a
compelling necessity to ensure fairness in investigation, preservation
of public faith in the administration of justice and protection of
fundamental rights of the parties involved. In examining the prayer
made by an aggrieved person seeking transfer of investigation to the
CBI, the Court must necessarily be guided by the strict parameters
laid down in binding precedents. These include, inter alia, instances
where the State police authorities appear to be biased or complicit,
where the investigation has been tainted by delay, irregularity,
suppression of material facts, or where the complexity and inter-
State ramifications of the matter necessitate the involvement of a
central agency.
19. The unprecedented gravity of this case involving brutal and inhuman
custodial torture, characterised by the complete mutilation of the
appellant’s genitalia, represents one of the most barbaric instances
of police atrocity which the State is trying to defend and cover up with
all pervasive power. The medical evidence conclusively establishes
that such injuries are impossible to be self-inflicted. The respondent’s
theory of suicide attempt crumbles under scrutiny when examined
against the timeline and the medical evidence. The appellant was
summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara on 17th
February, 2023 through a signal communication, which, notably,
made no reference to any specific FIR. The relevant portion of the
signal is reproduced herein:
“DD Extract report No.25 daily dairy dated 20-02-2023
on behalf of lines Officer DPL Baramulla
Departure Report:- Time 1145 hours.
Be it registered that as per signal No.ESTT/DE/2023/8135
dated 17-02-2023 issued by District Police Headquarters
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1317
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
Baramulla SgCt Khursheed Ahmad 489/B under PID
No.EXK-001355 presently posted in Estate Section DPL
Baramulla is deputed to District Police Headquarters
Kupwara in connection with enquiry of narcotic Drugs.”
Despite there being no reference of a registered case, the respondents
subsequently claim that the appellant was summoned for questioning
in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2023. However, this claim is
contradicted by the fact that FIR No. 17 of 2023, under which the
appellant was later implicated, was not registered until 23rd February
2023, and was based on the alleged disclosure made by co-accused
Farooq Hussain, who was arrested following the recovery of a narcotic
substance. This temporal anomaly exposes the fabricated nature of
the respondent’s case and conclusively establishes illegal detention
of the appellant from 20th February, 2023 to 26th February, 2023.
20. More significantly, the respondent’s suicide theory is demolished when
assessed in light of the medical evidence, which decisively rules out
the theory of the harm being self-inflicted. The complete surgical
removal of both testicles, the extensive injuries to the appellant’s
palms and soles, consistent with custodial torture techniques such as
falanga, the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the rectum,
and bruising on the buttocks extending to the thighs all points to
a pattern of sustained and systematic torture. These injuries are
medically impossible to be self-inflicted, particularly in the absence of
fatal hemorrhage or loss of consciousness, as would have occurred
had the mutilation been self-administered. The respondent’s reliance
on superficial cuts to the forearm as indicative of a suicide attempt
pales in comparison to the magnitude and nature of the injuries
sustained. Furthermore, CCTV footage showing the appellant walking
normally until 9:00 am on 26th February, 2023 only intensifies the
doubts surrounding the respondent’s account, as it leaves unexplained
how such grievous and complex injuries could be self-inflicted in
the narrow window between 9:00 am and 11:15 am, without any
signs of struggle, distress, or intervention by others within a secured
and surveilled facility. These glaring inconsistencies and manifest
contradictions render the respondent’s version wholly implausible
and reinforce the necessity of an independent investigation.
21. The respondent’s narrative reveals a disturbing pattern of systematic
cover-up and abuse of authority that further strengthens the appellant’s
claim for CBI investigation. Though the appellant’s wife attempted to
1318 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
file a complaint immediately after the incident through a legal notice
dated 2nd March, 2023, the respondents dismissively stated in their
response given in Court that the allegations were frivolous, having
no substance and hence were not replied. This cavalier dismissal of
serious allegations of custodial torture demonstrates the institutional
bias and predetermined mindset to protect the accused police officers.
The influence being exercised by local police officials is evident
from the fact that no proper investigation was initiated despite clear
medical evidence of torture, and instead, a counter FIR No. 32 of
2023 was registered against the victim himself under Section 309
of the IPC to create a false narrative. The respondent’s assertion
that the appellant and his wife were making attempts to somehow
deter the respondents and the Police authorities from investigating
the heinous offences involving the appellant, reveals the mindset of
viewing torture victims as impediments to investigation rather than
victims deserving justice.
22. While the respondents seeks to justify the appellant’s prolonged
detention and subsequent torture by referring to his alleged
involvement in FIR No. 01 of 2023 and FIR No. 17 of 2023 under
the NDPS Act, this very argument strengthens the case for an
independent investigation. The pendency of these cases creates a
conflict of interest where the same police machinery that is accused
of custodial torture is also investigating the NDPS cases against
the appellant. This creates an inherent bias where the investigating
officers have a vested interest in suppressing the torture allegations to
protect themselves while simultaneously trying to indict the appellant
in NDPS offences. The respondent’s argument that the appellant
attempted suicide ‘to dodge the investigation’ is not only medically
impossible given the nature of injuries but also logically flawed. It is
foolhardy to suggest that a rational person would subject himself to
complete genital mutilation and cause injuries at inaccessible body
parts so as to avoid questioning in a drug case. The investigation
of the custodial torture allegations and the NDPS cases require
complete separation and independence, which can only be achieved
through the transfer of investigation to an independent agency. The
current scenario, where the accused officers continue to investigate
the very person, they allegedly tortured, makes a mockery of the
criminal justice system and violates the very principle of fairness
and transparency.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1319
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
23. We are of the considered opinion that in rejecting the writ petition,
the High Court grossly erred in failing to exercise its constitutional
obligation of protecting the fundamental rights of a citizen, his
dignity and right to life. It failed to consider the gravity of offences
committed as well as the influence that could be exerted by accused
persons being police officials. There was a clear requirement and a
constitutional mandate to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation
so that fair and uninfluenced investigation could be conducted.
The High Court’s failure to appreciate that the accused are not
ordinary citizens but police officers wielding considerable power and
influence within the local administrative and investigative machinery
demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of
custodial torture cases. Police officers, by virtue of their position,
have access to evidence, witnesses, and investigative records, and
possess the institutional authority to manipulate, suppress, or destroy
crucial evidence that could establish their culpability.
24. This Court has addressed the grave issue of custodial torture, inhuman
treatment, and custodial deaths in a series of notable judgments
including D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal17, State of M.P. v.
Shyamsunder Trivedi18 and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa.19
This Court has not only condemned the nature and extent of such
violations as affronts to human dignity and constitutional rights but
has also underscored the imperative for a thorough, impartial, and
effective investigation into every instance of custodial violence. The
Court has repeatedly emphasised that accountability must be ensured
through proper legal and procedural mechanisms so that such acts
do not go unchecked or unpunished.
25. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court, while laying down effective guidelines
for police officials emphasised the procedures to be followed during
arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and to safeguard
the rights of the accused. The Court noted that:
“9. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the
lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands
that the powers of the executive should not only be derived
17 (1997) 1 SCC 416.
18 (1995) 4 SCC 262.
19 (1993) 2 SCC 746.
1320 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
from law but also that the same should be limited by law.
Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by
the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed
to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under
the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a
police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless.
The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by
the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of
deep concern in a free society.
11. “Custodial torture” is a naked violation of human dignity
and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent,
the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on
human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded,
civilisation takes a step backward — flag of humanity must
on each such occasion fly half-mast.”
26. Further, this Court in Shyamsunder Trivedi (supra), held that:
“17. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on
the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an
unrealistic approach of the courts because it reinforces
the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would
come to them, if an odd prisoner dies in the lock-up,
because there would hardly be any evidence available to
the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture.
The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in
police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes
in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and
poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society.
Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens
recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to
human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of
detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the
image of any civilised nation and encourages the men
in ‘Khaki’ to consider themselves to be above the law
and sometimes even to become law unto themselves.
Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady,
the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system
would be shaken and the civilization itself would risk the
consequence of heading towards perishing. The courts
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1321
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner
and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the
common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself, which
will be a sad day.”
27. Considering the unprecedented gravity of this custodial torture case,
the systematic cover-up orchestrated by local police machinery, the
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 respondent State, we are
constrained to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI. The local
police at Kupwara have demonstrated complete institutional failure
by first illegally detaining the appellant from 20th February, 2023,
then subjecting him to barbaric and systematic torture resulting in
permanent mutilation and finally refusing to register the complaint
filed by the appellant’s wife while simultaneously creating counter-
narratives to shield the perpetrators from accountability. By directing
the very Senior Superintendent of Police, who summoned the
appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, 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, i.e., 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. The majesty of law
demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality in
investigating crimes that shock the conscience of society and violate
the most fundamental principles of human dignity enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the transfer of investigation to
the CBI becomes not merely advisable but constitutionally imperative
to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.
III. On the issue of quashing of the FIR filed against the
appellant: -
28. This Court has, in a catena of judgments, consistently held that at
the stage of considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings,
it is not the function of the Court to meticulously examine the
truthfulness, reliability, or veracity of the allegations contained in
the FIR or accompanying materials. Nonetheless, it remains a
1322 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
settled principle of law that the allegations, even if accepted at their
face value, must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
Whether such disclosure arises from the FIR itself, the chargesheet,
or any other material placed on record, the essential requirement
is that the ingredients of the alleged offence must be prima facie
satisfied. It is the duty of the Constitutional Courts to safeguard
the machinery of criminal law from being reduced to a means of
vengeance, oppression, or personal vendetta. Where it is evident that
the initiation or continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of
process or is intended to harass the accused, the Court is not only
empowered but obligated to intervene and quash such proceedings
in the interest of justice. Thus, while the threshold for interference
at the preliminary stage is high, it does not preclude judicial scrutiny
altogether. Discretion under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding
Section 528 of the BNSS) must be exercised judiciously, especially
in cases where the allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or
lack the factual substratum necessary to constitute a prosecutable
offence.
29. This Court in a locus classicus judgment, State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal20, on the subject has laid down parameters for quashing of an FIR
and the subsequent proceedings thereof. The relevant paragraphs
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
20 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1323
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
1324 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
30. Recently, a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad
Wajid v. State of U.P.21, noted that:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/
complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
21 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1325
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/
registration of the case as well as the materials collected
in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case
on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period
of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
or personal grudge as alleged.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. In the present case, the authorities, instead of registering the complaint
of the appellant regarding custodial torture, filed a counter FIR
against him under Section 309 of the IPC. Perusal of the contents
of FIR (supra) reflect that the allegations made therein are vague
and manifestly contradictory to the established medical evidence.
The FIR states that the appellant tried to cut his vein with a blade,
however, the medical records, above discussed, reveal that the
injuries are much graver and more extensive than what is depicted
in this manifestly fabricated narrative. The 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.
32. In our considered view, the present case squarely falls within
parameters (1) and (7) laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lal
(supra) whereby, this Court authoritatively held that quashing is
justified where: (i) the allegations made in the FIR or complaint,
even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose
the commission of any offence, or (ii) the criminal proceedings are
manifestly tainted by mala fides, having been instituted maliciously
with the ulterior purpose of wreaking vengeance. The registration of
FIR No. 32 of 2023 against the victim of custodial torture constitutes
a classic example of institutional abuse and perversion of criminal
justice machinery to shield the real perpetrators while victimizing
the complainant. The 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. The
timing and manner of registration of this FIR, which was a sequel
1326 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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. This is 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. The 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.
33. Upon evaluating the present case and the material on record, we
find that the High Court gravely erred in declining to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash FIR No. 32 of
2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom. 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.
34. Before we conclude, we deem it necessary to address the question
of compensation to the appellant, who is a victim of brutal and
inhuman custodial torture. It is now well-settled in Indian constitutional
jurisprudence that where fundamental rights, particularly the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation
may be an effective remedy. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court held
that pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy
for the infringement of fundamental rights caused by State officials
and that the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable. The Court
noted that such compensation must focus on the compensatory
element and serve as a balm to the victim, without prejudice to other
remedies in civil or criminal law.
35. The principle has been reiterated in Nilabati Behera (supra) and
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana22, where this Court held that
compensation may be awarded when the violation of Article 21
is patent, incontrovertible, and of a magnitude that shocks the
conscience of the Court. The relevant observations from the said
judgment are extracted below:
22 (2006) 3 SCC 178.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1327
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
“46. In cases where custodial death or custodial torture
or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article
21 is established, the courts may award compensation
in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before
awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself
the following questions: (a) whether the violation of Article
21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation
is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of
the court, (c) whether the custodial torture alleged has
resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported
by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability.”
36. We are of the unequivocal opinion that the present case meets all
such criteria. The 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 reminders of the inhuman torture meted out to the appellant
while detaining him illegally. The cumulative effect of all these facts
is deeply shocking to the conscience of this Court.
37. Accordingly, considering the gravity and magnitude of the custodial
torture established through medical records and the institutional
apathy that followed, we are of the considered opinion that this is a
fit case for awarding compensation to the victim of the violence, i.e.,
the appellant herein. The violation of Article 21 is not only evident
but egregious. The appellant, a police constable himself, suffered
life-debilitating injuries while in the custody of fellow state actors,
and despite repeated complaints, no effective redress was provided.
In line with the decisions referred above, and in discharge of the
Court’s duty to uphold constitutional protections, we direct the State
to pay interim compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant. This compensation is without prejudice
to the appellant’s right to pursue further remedies for additional
compensation before appropriate forum. The State Government
shall be under an obligation to recover the said amount from the
officials found guilty upon completion of the investigation/disciplinary
proceedings.
Conclusion & Directions: -
38. In exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 read
with Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in furtherance of
1328 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights, we hereby
issue the following directions: -
I. The Director, CBI, shall forthwith direct registration of a RC in
relation to the incidents of custodial violence and illegal detention
of the appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara
during the period from 20th February, 2023 to 26th February,
2023, under relevant provisions of the penal statutes, based
on the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife dated 1st March,
2023 and the medical evidence on record. The RC shall be
registered within 7 days of this order.
II. The entire material collected in enquiry conducted so far,
including all related documents, medical records, CCTV footage,
forensic evidence, and case diary, shall be immediately handed
over to the competent officer of the CBI. The Director, CBI, shall
constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer not
below the rank of Superintendent of Police to investigate this
matter. The police officials found responsible for the custodial
torture shall be arrested forthwith and not later than a period
of one month from today. The investigation shall be completed
within 90 days of the date of registration of the RC.
III. The CBI shall also conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the
systemic issues at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara,
including examination of all CCTV systems, interrogation
from all personnel present during the relevant period, forensic
examination of the premises, and review of all protocols and
procedures followed for detention and interrogation of suspects.
IV. FIR No. 32 of 2023, registered against the appellant under
Section 309 of the IPC at Police Station Kupwara, is hereby
quashed being prima facie fabricated as, in our considered
view, the same was registered with mala fide intent to shield
the guilty officers and prejudice the rights of the appellant.
V. A sequel to the above discussion and in order to provide some
solace to the victim and his family for the barbaric acts of
custodial torture leading to complete castration, we hereby direct
the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant (victim). The
said amount shall be recoverable from the officer(s) concerned
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1329
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v.
Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
against whom a departmental proceeding shall be initiated
upon conclusion of the investigation by the CBI. The CBI shall
submit its status report to this Court by 10th November, 2025.
39. At the outset, we deem it necessary to clarify that the observations
made herein concerning the investigation into the allegations of
custodial torture are strictly limited to the adjudication of the appellant’s
case and the impugned proceedings under consideration. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expressing any opinion
on the merits of any other prosecution, and it is expressly provided
that any proceedings arising therefrom shall go on independently
and uninfluenced by the present findings, in accordance with law.
40. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 18th
September, 2023, passed by the learned Single Bench of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023 connected with Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 592 of 2023, rejecting the appellant’s prayer for transfer
of investigation to the CBI, is hereby quashed and set aside.
41. The present appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
42. Any pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
43. List again on 17th November, 2025, for receiving the status report.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Custodial torture"Sign in to search