Jammu Court Orders FIR Against Suspended Deputy SP, Cops For Alleged Assault, Caste Abuse Of BDO On Election Duty

The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, to take appropriate action against the then In-Charge of Police Station Gandhi Nagar for failing to register the FIR despite the allegations disclosing cognizable offences.

City Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, Ghulam Murtaza, while allowing the application filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, observed,

"The preliminary inquiry conducted by the In-Charge, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, is legally unsustainable. The court is also of the considered view that the acts attributed to the proposed accused, as seen from the CCTV footage and the applicant's version, do not bear a reasonable nexus to the discharge of their official duties."

The Court further observed, "A preliminary enquiry cannot be expanded into a mini-trial or fact-finding process to test the veracity of allegations; its purpose is only to ascertain whether the case falls within the statutory parameters for FIR registration."

The applicant, Azhar Khan, a JKAS officer posted as Block Development Officer, Nagrota, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for transportation for the 77-Nagrota Assembly Constituency by-election scheduled on November 11, 2025. On November 10, 2025, at around 12:10 PM, while inspecting transport routes near the distribution centre in Nagrota, Khan and his team were involved in a minor road accident.

According to the complaint, DySP Sunil Singh Jasrotia, then SDPO City South, Jammu, arrived at the spot and despite being informed repeatedly that Khan was on authorised election duty under written orders, began shouting, abusing, intimidating, and defaming him. The DySP then allegedly began slapping and kicking him in full public view, causing injuries and public humiliation.

The police officer, along with his PSOs and other police personnel, forcibly took Khan in a police vehicle to the police station, where he was allegedly wrongfully confined, further beaten, abused, and threatened with dire consequences. Khan's colleague, Abbas Ali, was also allegedly manhandled and assaulted. The complaint also alleged that both were subjected to caste-based insults linked to their Gujjar identity. A video clip of the incident had gone viral on social media.

Following the incident, the government suspended DySP Sunil Jasrotia pending enquiry. However, despite Khan submitting written complaints to the SHO of Gandhi Nagar and then to the SSP of Jammu, no FIR was registered, prompting him to approach the court.

Court's Observation

The Court framed five questions for determination, including whether the allegations disclosed cognizable offences, whether a preliminary inquiry could be initiated, and whether the act of the proposed accused was committed in discharge of official duty.

On the scope of preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS, the Court relied upon Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (AIR 2014 SC 187) and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 LiveLaw SC 362). The Court observed that the concept of preliminary inquiry was judicially evolved and cannot be expanded into a mini-trial. The Court held,

"The scope of preliminary enquiry is confined to perusal of the complaint and supporting materials furnished by the complainant. If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police shall register an FIR forthwith and proceed with investigation."

The Court found that the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, including offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed,

"Perusal of the allegations made in the instant application prima facie discloses commission of the offences, as punishable u/s 3(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; as such, there was no statutory necessity for initiating preliminary inquiry."

The Court also found serious irregularities in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police. The Court noted that the inquiry was initiated by the In-Charge, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, with permission from the SDPO City South, who was the proposed accused himself. The Court observed,

"The In-Charge, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, on the dictates of the proposed accused... becomes the investigator ordering a preliminary inquiry/investigation, which is a blatant violation of the principles of fair investigation."

The Court further held that summons cannot be issued during a preliminary inquiry. The Court relied upon R. Somasundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 Supreme (Mad) 5193) and observed,

"Summons/notice cannot be issued during preliminary enquiry. The examination of persons and recording of their statements by the police officers is a part of investigation under the code. The process of investigation begins only after the registration of the FIR."

On the applicability of Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, the Court held that it applies only to offences under the Ranbir Penal Code and not under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court observed that if the offence committed is under RPC by the police officer under the colour of his duty, then Rule 349 shall come into picture and if the offence committed is under BNS, 2023 the same will not apply.

The Court also held that a counter-FIR can be registered on a rival version arising out of the same transaction. The Court remarked,

"The registration of an FIR on the application of the minibus driver does not preclude the registration of another FIR on the rival version of the applicant herein arising out of the same transaction. The police are duty-bound to investigate both versions."

The Court directed the registration of an FIR against the proposed accused and his PSOs, and directed the SSP Jammu to take appropriate action against the then In-Charge of Police Station Gandhi Nagar for failing to register the FIR. The Court also directed that the investigation be conducted fairly and impartially by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and having no connection with the incident.

Case Title: Azhar Khan v. Sunil Singh Jasotia and Others

Appearances

Applicant: Senior Advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney

Click here to read/download Order