J&K Police Rules | Failure To Report Complaint Against Police Officer To District Magistrate Vitiates Proceedings: High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that provisions contained in Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules are mandatory and unless the substance of a complaint against a police officer alleged to have committed an offence under the Ranbir Penal Code in the colour of his duties is reported to the District Magistrate, proceedings initiated by the police or the Magistrate would become invalid.The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashment of an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kishtwar, whereby the revisional court had set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the petitioners who were police officials from criminal proceedings. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “The provisions contained in Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules is mandatory in nature and unless the substance of complaint against a police officer, who is alleged to have committed an offence under Ranbir Penal Code under the colour of his duties, is reported to the District Magistrate either by the police or by the Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom the complaint against such police officer is made, the action of the police or the Judicial Magistrate First Class would become invalid.”Background:The petition arose from criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, who were serving police officials, in relation to allegations of offences under the Ranbir Penal Code. After investigation, the police presented a challan before the trial court seeking prosecution of the accused persons. When the petitioners appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar, they sought discharge on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules had not been complied with prior to launching prosecution against them. They also contended that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required before prosecuting them for acts allegedly performed in discharge of their official duties. Accepting their contention, the trial Magistrate discharged the petitioners from the proceedings while allowing the case to continue against the remaining accused persons. However, the order of discharge was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Kishtwar, who set aside the Magistrate's decision and directed that the criminal proceedings should continue against the petitioners as well. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners approached the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction. Court's Observation:Examining the scope of Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules, Justice Dhar noted that the provision requires that whenever a complaint is made against a police officer for an offence allegedly committed under the colour of official duties, the substance of the complaint must be reported to the District Magistrate. The Court explained that this procedural safeguard serves as a protective mechanism intended to shield police officials from false or frivolous complaints that may arise due to the nature of their duties. It further observed that the requirement of reporting the substance of such complaints to the District Magistrate is not merely procedural but mandatory, and failure to comply with it would vitiate the subsequent proceedings. The Court noted that in the present case the investigating agency as well as the Magistrate had completely overlooked the requirement contained in Rule 349 before proceeding against the petitioners. This procedural lapse, according to the Court, struck at the very root of the prosecution. The Court also observed that the revisional court had failed to examine this crucial aspect while interfering with the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate. Holding that the protection provided under Rule 349 could not be ignored while initiating criminal proceedings against police officials for acts allegedly performed in discharge of official duties, the Court concluded that the revisional court's order suffered from legal infirmity. Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Kishtwar, and upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the petitioners from the criminal proceedings. The Court held that failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules rendered the proceedings against the petitioners unsustainable in law. Case Title:Mohammad Yaseen & Anr v. State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 91Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

J&K Police Rules | Failure To Report Complaint Against Police Officer To District Magistrate Vitiates Proceedings: High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

J&K Police Rules | Failure To Report Complaint Against Police Officer To District Magistrate Vitiates Proceedings: High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers