Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that the petitioner must first be supplied the relevant material so that he could examine it and thereafter avail an appropriate remedy under law. The Court, however, clarified that the direction would not confer immunity upon him if he was found involved in any act warranting prosecution.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Mohammad Aslam Raina under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing or expunging of certain remarks contained in a police report dated August 17, 2026.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chadoora, seeking registration and fair investigation of cognizable offences allegedly committed by the accused persons, including the petitioner.

The Magistrate had called for a report from the police. In response, the SHO, Police Station Chadoora, submitted a report containing remarks that the petitioner was a Pakistan-trained militant who had allegedly travelled illegally to POK in 1991, returned in the same year and remained affiliated with the HM outfit. The report further stated that he had been arrested in 1992 and released in 1993.

The police report also referred to two criminal cases registered against the petitioner under Section 447-A RPC and stated that challans had been presented before the competent court. It further referred to an acquittal in an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 506 RPC on July 18, 2026, while making a reference to another case as still pending against him.

Aggrieved by these remarks, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the allegations had no nexus with the complaint filed under Section 175(3) BNSS and were baseless and unwarranted. He argued that the remarks had far-reaching consequences and amounted to character assassination of not only himself but also his family.

The petitioner further submitted that he had already approached the concerned SHO through an application seeking the complete material on the basis of which the militancy-related remarks had been incorporated in the police report. However, the requested material had not been furnished.

Court's Observation

Appearing for the official respondents, Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh submitted that the petitioner could approach the concerned SHO and that the entire material would be furnished to him in accordance with law.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the remarks concerning the petitioner's alleged militant background and past criminal cases were based on material and records maintained at Police Station Chadoora. It noted that the petitioner had specifically stated that the material had not been supplied despite his earlier application.

The Court held that, in the circumstances, the petitioner should first be provided the relevant material forming the basis of the impugned remarks, enabling him to examine the same and avail an appropriate remedy under law. It remarked,

“Prima facie, the remarks relating to the Petitioner being a PAK/POK-trained militant and his past criminal cases are based on material and record maintained at Police Station Chadoora. The Petitioner has categorically stated that the said material has not been supplied to him, despite his application dated 28th of September, 2026.”

The Court further observed,

“In these circumstances, it is just and proper that the Petitioner be first supplied the relevant material forming the basis of the impugned remarks, so that he may examine the same and, thereafter, avail such remedy as may be available to him under law.”

Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the SHO, Police Station Chadoora, to consider the petitioner's application/notice and furnish the relevant material to him, as permissible under law. The Court further clarified that, after receiving the material, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

At the same time, it made clear that the direction should not be construed as granting immunity to the petitioner if he was found involved in any act of omission or commission calling for his prosecution.