Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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