24 June 2024


High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

Ajeet Chopra vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Others




Once Superior Officer approves closure, It is not open for officer inferior in rank to direct re-investigation of case

Through the instant petition, the Petitioner has challenged order issued by the Superintendent of Police, /Respondent No.3 whereby the said Respondent has, inspite of the investigation in the case FIR for offences under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered with Police Station, having been closed as not admitted by the orders of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu/Respondent No.2, directed further investigation of the case. The main and only contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that once a superior officer of Police has approved the closure of a case as not admitted, it is not open to an officer who is inferior in rank to flout the aforesaid order and direct reinvestigation of the case.

As per the response submitted by Respondent No.2/Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu vide his affidavit, it has been admitted that on the recommendations made by the SDPO, South, the case was concluded as not admitted and ratified by the then SSP, Jammu. The affidavit further goes on to admit that the impugned order issued by SP, City South, Jammu directing reopening of the investigation of the case, is not in accordance with law. Once Respondent No.2 had accorded approval to the closure of case as not admitted, it was not open to Respondent No.3 to direct re-investigation of the case.

Thus, the course adopted by Respondent No.3 in present case not only amounts to abuse of process of law but it also smacks of insubordination. If at all, there was any scope for re-investigation of the case, respondent No.3 could have placed his opinion before his superior officer, the Respondent no.2 instead of taking it upon himself and directing further reinvestigation of the case. The impugned order passed by Respondent no. 3 is, therefore, not sustainable in law and as such, the same deserves to be quashed.

Impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 directing reinvestigation of the case is quashed, leaving it open to the Respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The relevant authorities of the Police Department are at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent No.3 for having acted in a manner which smacks of insubordination. Petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Tags : FIR Reinvestigation Legality

Share :