SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation for each of four Karnah residents after an NDPS case against them was closed for lack of evidence, holding that the mere registration of an FIR and its subsequent closure as “not admitted” does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights or justify monetary compensation.
Justice Shahzad Azeem delivered the judgment on July 22, 2026, dismissing the petition filed by Javid Ahmad Lone, Raja Ikhlaq Akbar, Safeer Ahmad Gadwal and Basit Khan. The petition challenged FIR No. 11/2023 registered at Police Station Karnah under Sections 8A, 27B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and sought compensation after the investigation ended without a chargesheet.
The petitioners were represented by advocate Waseem Ramzan, while the Union Territory was represented by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah.
According to the judgment, the FIR was registered on January 23, 2023 after police received credible information alleging that the petitioners and others were involved in smuggling narcotic drugs from across the Line of Control and investing the proceeds in movable and immovable properties to conceal their illicit origin. During the investigation, search warrants were obtained from an Executive Magistrate, 14 vehicles were seized, witnesses examined and mobile phones sent for forensic analysis. However, the investigation was ultimately closed as “not admitted” because sufficient admissible evidence could not be collected to file a chargesheet.
The petitioners argued that they were respectable citizens and that the FIR was vague, fabricated and malicious, particularly because no contraband had been recovered. They also alleged that the case had been registered to harass and extort them and sought compensation of Rs 50 lakh each.
The government, however, maintained that the FIR was registered on credible information, the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law, and that none of the petitioners had been arrested or harassed during the investigation. It also submitted that the petition had become infructuous after the investigation was closed.
Rejecting the compensation claim, the High Court held that the registration of the FIR was a statutory obligation of the police once information disclosing a cognizable offence was received.
Quoting the judgment, the court observed: “The registration of the FIR was, therefore, in discharge of the statutory duty cast upon the police. There is nothing discernible from the Case Diary that the FIR was registered without any basis or with any oblique motive at the threshold stage.”
The court further noted that the investigation itself demonstrated fairness rather than mala fides.
“Had the Investigating Officer been acting with any malafide intention or with the object of harassing the petitioners or extorting money, he could have attempted to somehow manipulate or fabricate evidence to file a false charge sheet… Instead, the I.O. has bonafidely closed the investigation when the evidence was found insufficient.”
Justice Azeem held that compensation under writ jurisdiction is an exceptional remedy and can be awarded only when there is an established violation of fundamental rights coupled with mala fides or gross abuse of process.
“Mere registration of FIR on receiving information of commission of a cognizable offence and closure as ‘not admitted’ do not constitute violation of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.”
The court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that Sections 8A, 27B and 29 of the NDPS Act are not standalone substantive offences. It held that the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed prima facie involvement in trafficking narcotic drugs from across the Line of Control and laundering the proceeds by acquiring movable and immovable properties, thereby attracting the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the court ruled: “The prayer for grant of compensation is also rejected as being misconceived and unsupported by any material showing malafides or violation of fundamental rights.”
It added that since the investigation had already been closed, “the substratum of the petition has disappeared and the FIR is no longer operational,” leaving nothing further for adjudication. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
