J&K&L High Court Rejects ₹50 Lakh Compensation Claim, Says Closure Of NDPS Probe Shows Investigating Officer Acted Bona Fide

Rejecting a claim for ₹50 lakh compensation by each of the petitioners following the closure of an NDPS case as "not admitted", the Court held that an honest decision to close an investigation due to lack of evidence cannot be equated with abuse of process or violation of fundamental rights.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of an FIR registered at Police Station Karnah under Sections 8A, 27B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with a prayer for payment of compensation of ₹50 lakh each.

A Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem observed,

"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 and drag the petitioners into prolonged trial. Instead, the I.O. has bonafidely closed the investigation when the evidence was found insufficient. Therefore, the closure itself is a manifestation of the bona fide intention of the Investigating Officer."

In the instant case an FIR was registered after the police received reliable source information alleging that the petitioners and other persons were engaged in trafficking narcotic drugs smuggled from across the Line of Control and investing the proceeds in movable and immovable properties to conceal their illicit origin.

During investigation, search warrants were obtained from the Executive Magistrate, fourteen vehicles allegedly belonging to the accused were seized, statements of witnesses were recorded and mobile phones were sent for forensic examination. However, upon completion of investigation, the police concluded that sufficient admissible evidence was unavailable to support prosecution and accordingly closed the case as "not admitted".

The petitioners challenged the FIR contending that it was based on vague and fabricated allegations, that no contraband had been recovered during investigation and that one of the named accused was already in jail since 2018, indicating that the FIR had been lodged only to harass and extort them. They also sought compensation of ₹50 lakh each for the alleged violation of their rights.

The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR had been registered on credible source information disclosing commission of cognizable offences, that the investigation had been conducted fairly and strictly in accordance with law and that the petitioners had neither been arrested nor subjected to any harassment during investigation.

It was contended that, after closure of the investigation, the petition survived only with respect to the claim for compensation, which was wholly misconceived.

Court's Observations:

At the outset, Justice Azeem observed that the prayer seeking quashment of the FIR had become infructuous in view of the closure of investigation and that the only surviving issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation.

The Court held that the registration of the FIR itself was legally justified since it was based upon reliable source information disclosing commission of cognizable offences under the NDPS Act.

Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognizable offence and the police have no discretion either to refuse registration or conduct a preliminary inquiry into its correctness. The Court found nothing in the case diary to indicate that the FIR had been registered without any basis or with an oblique motive.

Upon examining the case diary, the Bench found that the investigation had been conducted by following due process of law. Search warrants had been obtained from the Executive Magistrate before conducting searches, vehicles were seized in the Magistrate's presence and correspondence was made with revenue and other departments regarding the properties allegedly acquired from illicit proceeds.

The Court held that these investigative steps demonstrated adherence to the statutory procedure and disclosed no material indicating high-handedness, mala fides or abuse of authority on the part of the Investigating Officer.

The Court attached particular significance to the Investigating Officer's decision to close the investigation after finding insufficient admissible evidence.

The Court observed that the very decision of the Investigating Officer to close the investigation for want of sufficient evidence demonstrated his bona fides. It reasoned that if the officer had been actuated by mala fide motives, such as harassing the petitioners or extorting money, he could have manipulated or fabricated evidence to file a false charge sheet and subject them to a prolonged criminal trial.

Instead, having found the available evidence insufficient, the Investigating Officer chose to close the investigation, which, according to the Court, itself reflected his bona fide intention, the court opined.

The Bench further noted that the petitioners had neither been arrested nor subjected to custodial torture, illegal detention or physical harassment during the course of investigation. It held that compensation in public law is an exceptional remedy available only where there is an established violation of fundamental rights coupled with mala fides or gross abuse of process causing demonstrable harm.

"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", Justice Azeem remarked.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that Sections 8A, 27B and 29 of the NDPS Act are not standalone substantive offences. It held that the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie disclosed illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and laundering of proceeds thereof, thereby attracting the statutory provisions invoked in the FIR.

Holding that the petitioners had failed to establish any mala fides, abuse of process or violation of fundamental rights, the High Court rejected their claim for compensation. It concluded that, with the investigation having already been closed as "not admitted", nothing survived for adjudication and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

Case Title: Javid Ahmad Lone & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K through SHO, Police Station Karnah, District Kupwara

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

For Petitioners: Mr. Waseem Ramzan, Advocate

For Respondent: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download the Judgment.