Observing that police officers have no discretion to "sit over" warrants issued by competent courts, the Court registered a complaint on its own motion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the SSP for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Police Act for breach of the duty cast by Section 24 thereof.

The Court acted under Section 210(1)(c) of the BNSS while considering repeated instances of non-compliance with judicial orders passed in three separate criminal proceedings. The order arose out of proceedings where warrants issued against the accused and later against the SHO, Bandipora, allegedly remained unexecuted despite repeated judicial directions.

City Judge/JMIC Tarun Mahajan, while directing issuance of a pre-cognizance notice to the SSP, observed,

"Once the warrant is entrusted to him, he has no authority under law to sit over the warrants issued by this court and has no discretionary powers not to execute the warrants and he has no option other than to execute the warrant as it is the lawful and bounden duty of every Police Officer to execute the warrant once entrusted lawfully by the court of competent jurisdiction."

The Court further directed issuance of notice to the proposed accused under Section 223(2)(a) BNSS and called upon the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Kashmir, being the superior officer, to submit a report under Section 223(2)(b) BNSS before the next date of hearing. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Court was directed to conduct the prosecution.

The proceedings originated from a complaint wherein the Court had directed the SHO, Bandipora, to arrest the accused. Despite successive orders neither were the warrants executed nor were compliance reports furnished by the concerned police authorities. The SHO, Bandipora, also failed to appear before the Court despite specific directions.

Finding repeated non-compliance, the Court issued a bailable warrant against the SHO, Bandipora, to be executed through the SSP, Bandipora. When those directions also went unheeded, the Court invoked Section 81 BNSS and specifically entrusted the SSP, Srinagar, with execution of the warrant against the SHO, Bandipora, considering that the police machinery in Bandipora had allegedly failed to respond. However, according to the Court, the SSP, Srinagar, neither executed the warrant nor submitted any report despite repeated opportunities.

The Court also referred to two other matters where it found that warrants entrusted to the SSP, Srinagar, against SHOs of Rajpora and Kupwara respectively had similarly remained unexecuted without any compliance report being filed. Relying upon these instances, the Court concluded that the alleged default was not confined to a solitary case but disclosed a recurring pattern of non-compliance.

The Court expressed serious concern over what it described as repeated disregard of judicial process by the district police leadership. Observing that the warrants remained unexecuted despite the whereabouts of the concerned police officers being known, the Court opined that there were prima facie reasons to believe that the warrants had been deliberately withheld instead of being executed.

The Court observed that if warrants lawfully entrusted to senior police officers remain unattended without explanation, such conduct undermines the administration of justice and may amount to wilful neglect of statutory duty.

Referring to Sections 24 and 29 of the Jammu & Kashmir Police Act, it held that every police officer is under a statutory obligation to promptly execute warrants lawfully issued by a competent authority and that wilful breach of such duty constitutes a punishable offence.

The Court further remarked that judicial restraint exercised in initiating action against defaulting officials should not be mistaken for institutional weakness. It observed,

"..Magnanimity shown by courts, restraint exercised by the courts and patience practiced by the court in initiating action or prosecution against defaulting officials/person should not be construed as weakness of the court or lack of authority vested in the court."

Recording a prima facie satisfaction, the Court held that the repeated omissions attributed to the SSP, Srinagar, disclosed a case warranting initiation of proceedings under Section 24 read with Section 29 of the Police Act. It clarified that the bar contained in Section 215 BNSS (corresponding to Section 195 CrPC) was not attracted as the Court was not taking cognizance of offences covered by that provision but was proceeding on its own knowledge under Section 210(1)(c) BNSS.

At the same time, recognising the statutory safeguards available to public servants, the Court held that before taking cognizance, the proposed accused was entitled to an opportunity of being heard under Section 223(2)(a) BNSS. It further directed the superior police authority to furnish a factual report under Section 223(2)(b) BNSS and observed that if cognizance were ultimately taken, the proposed accused would also be informed of his right under Section 211 BNSS to seek inquiry or trial before another Magistrate.

Accordingly, the Court registered a suo motu complaint under Section 210(1)(c) BNSS against Dr. G. V. Sundeep Chakravarthy, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Police Act, punishable under Section 29 thereof.

It directed issuance of a pre-cognizance notice to the proposed accused, called for a report from the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Kashmir, directed supply of the complaint and annexures to the parties concerned, and listed the matter for 16 July 2026 for hearing and consideration of the report.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Dr. G. V. Sundeep Chakravarthy, IPS

Click here to read/download the Order.