SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the police to strictly follow the procedure prescribed by law if the presence or assistance of an advocate is required during the investigation of a POCSO case, while observing that being a lawyer does not place anyone above the law.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the direction while disposing of a petition filed by Wasim Ahmad Reshi in connection with FIR No. 198/2026 registered at Police Station Ramban under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The order was passed on September 9 after the court heard counsel for both sides and examined an affidavit filed by the respondents in compliance with its earlier order dated August 17. Reshi was represented by advocate Wani Manzoor, while the respondents were represented by assisting counsel Harris Khan.
According to the court, Police Station Ramban had, on August 6, addressed a communication to the SHO of Police Station Magam requiring the petitioner to assist in the investigation arising from the FIR. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, had drafted an affidavit on behalf of the alleged victim in connection with whom the FIR had been registered. It was in this context that he was called upon to appear before the police.
The petitioner’s case before the court was that, under the guise of investigating the FIR, he had been subjected to intimidation and harassment and was repeatedly called to the police station without adherence to due process of law.
The respondents strongly contested the allegation. Their counsel submitted that the affidavit drafted by the petitioner indicated that the alleged victim, who had been reported missing and in whose regard the FIR was registered, had been in contact with him. It was against this background that the police, after receiving information from Police Station Ramban, sought to enquire from the petitioner about the whereabouts of the alleged victim.
Rejecting the contention that the police had acted outside the law merely by seeking the petitioner’s assistance, the court observed that “it cannot be said that the respondents, while conducting the investigation in connection with the FIR, acted dehors the process of law.”
The court further remarked that “merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law,” adding that, as an officer of the court and someone well versed in the legal position, he was expected to provide lawful assistance to the investigating agency when required.
Justice Parihar observed that such cooperation was in consonance with the administration of justice and the duties expected of an officer of the court, particularly where the objective was to ascertain the truth concerning the alleged offence and, if an offence had been committed, bring the offender to justice.
At the same time, the court made it clear that the police were equally bound by law. “The Police Agency is equally required to act strictly within the four corners of law,” it said, directing that while seeking information or assistance from the petitioner concerning the alleged victim or the investigation, the investigating agency must “scrupulously adhere to the procedure established by law.”
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police agency had stopped calling him after the filing of the petition. He fairly conceded that the immediate cause of action no longer survived, but sought a direction to prevent any apprehension of harassment in future.
Taking note of the submission, the court disposed of the petition with a specific direction that if the petitioner’s assistance or presence was required during the investigation of FIR No. 198/2026, the same must be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The petition, along with the connected miscellaneous applications, was accordingly disposed of.
