SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that the case required a fair investigation and directing the SSP Doda and Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Doda to supervise the probe. Justice M A Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on August 12, 2026, held that the petition filed by six residents of Nacha, Ganotha Assar, Doda, was “without any merit and substance”.
The judgment was delivered in CRM(M) No. 836/2025, which had been reserved on August 5 and pronounced on August 12. The petitioners—Abdul Gani, Mohd Sharief, Mehboob, Yasir, Naseer Ahmed and Safoora Begum—had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0025/2025 registered at Police Station Assar on August 11, 2025, under Sections 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate N A Gatoo, while the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the SHO, Police Station Assar, were represented by Government Advocate Adarsh Bhagat. The complainant, Mohd Ashraf, did not contest the proceedings despite service and had no representation before the court.
The case arose from an incident on July 9, 2025, when, according to the petitioners, a “trivial altercation” took place between three of them and the complainant’s family at a park in Ramgarh. The petitioners alleged that the complainant and his family members later went to the shop of Abdul Gani in the main market of Bagger, Ramgarh, where an assault took place involving lathis, stones and a toka. The injured were taken to PHC Assar for treatment.
Abdul Gani subsequently lodged a complaint, following which Police Station Assar registered FIR No. 0019/2025 on July 9 against eight persons under various provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act. Those accused later secured bail from the District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Doda, by a common order dated July 29, 2025.
The petitioners contended that the second FIR, lodged about a month later, was a counter-blast to the earlier case and an abuse of the process of law intended to harass them and tarnish their reputation. They further argued that the allegations did not prima facie disclose a cognisable offence under the SC/ST Act.
The police, however, placed a different account before the court. According to the status report filed on April 23, 2026, the complainant had alleged that on July 9, when children from his family went to a local shop, Abdul Gani and around ten others abused them using caste-based slurs. It was further alleged that Mehboob took a butcher’s knife from the shop and attempted to attack the children. The complaint also alleged that Asif Hussain Bakerwal was stripped, beaten, slapped and abused because he was a Bakerwal and was accused of emitting a foul smell. He was subsequently admitted to Government Medical College, Doda, for two days.
The complaint also alleged that Safoora Begum, who worked as a cook at Government Middle School Necha, made caste-based remarks and told members of the Bakerwal community not to attend the school. The FIR was subsequently registered and investigation entrusted to the Dy SP, DAR Doda.
The status report said that the investigating officer had visited the alleged place of occurrence, prepared a site plan and recorded statements of eyewitnesses under Section 180 BNSS through the eSakshya application. Those witnesses, the report said, corroborated the complaint. However, statements of 17 independent witnesses did not corroborate the earlier eyewitness accounts. The report further said that eight persons whose signatures appeared on the written complaint claimed they were unaware that it contained allegations attracting the SC/ST Act.
The Government Advocate opposed the plea for quashing, arguing that the matter involved disputed facts and serious allegations which could not be adjudicated upon in the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. He submitted that the power to quash criminal proceedings had to be exercised sparingly and that the case did not fall within the exceptional categories identified in Bhajan Lal. He also pointed out that the investigation was still under way, with statements of 15 witnesses yet to be recorded.
Justice Chowdhary, after examining the record, noted that the complainant had approached the SSP Doda after the local police station had already registered FIR No. 19/2025 against members of his family at the instance of petitioner No. 1. The court observed that this appeared to be the reason why the complainant approached the district police chief for action on his complaint.
The court took particular exception to the manner in which the investigation had proceeded. While the investigating officer had relied upon the fact that 17 independent witnesses did not corroborate the eyewitness accounts, the court observed that “it is not the number of witnesses that matters, but it is the quality of the evidence”. It said witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence and had supported the complainant’s version should have been given due consideration in finalising the investigation.
The court also expressed surprise that the investigation into an FIR registered on August 11, 2025, remained incomplete nearly a year later. “It is very surprising that the investigation of the case registered on 11.08.2025 has not been completed till now,” Justice Chowdhary observed, adding that the circumstances suggested that the investigating officer “may not be impartial” and could have been proceeding in a manner favourable to the accused rather than the complainant party.
The court underscored the protective purpose of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that the complainant party belonged to a “vulnerable, weak and underprivileged class” for whose protection Parliament had enacted the legislation.
Rejecting the petitioners’ argument concerning the one-month delay in registration of the FIR, the court held that the delay could not be attributed to the complainant because, despite his efforts, the case was not registered at the local police station and he was consequently compelled to approach the SSP Doda. The delay, therefore, could not provide a ground for quashing the FIR.
The High Court also found significance in the fact that the complainant and his relatives had themselves been made accused in FIR No. 19/2025 arising from the same July 9 incident. Rather than weakening the complainant’s case, the court said that the circumstance lent support to his assertion that an occurrence had indeed taken place.
While declining to interfere with the FIR, the court directed the SSP Doda and CJM Doda to supervise the investigation and ensure that it was conducted in accordance with law, directing that a copy of the order be forwarded to both officers for compliance.
