Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Ajeet Chopra vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Others - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (04 Jun 2021)

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

MANU/JK/0338/2021

Service

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved