Supreme Court directs CBI probe into alleged custodial mutilation, quashes counter-FIR and awards Rs 50 lakh relief

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals challenging the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh’s order which declined to direct registration of an FIR against police personnel, refused transfer of investigation to the CBI and rejected a petition to quash an FIR lodged against the appellant. The appeals arose from the Single Judge’s common judgment dated 18 September 2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023 connected with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2023.

The Court allowed the appeals, held that registration of an FIR was mandatory where information disclosed a cognizable offence, found the High Court’s direction for a preliminary inquiry by local senior officers impermissible in the facts, and directed independent investigation by the CBI. The Court observed that the medical records and chronology “establish a prima facie case of the most heinous form of custodial torture” and that permitting local inquiry by officers under whose control the appellant was summoned would offend the maxim “nemo judex in causa sua.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. ... At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.” The Court ordered immediate steps for a CBI registration, transfer of enquiry materials, arrest of responsible officers and awarded interim compensation.

Background The appellant, a serving police constable, was summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara, and alleged that between 20 and 26 February 2023 he was illegally detained and subjected to brutal custodial torture, including amputation of his genitalia, application of pepper, electric shocks and fractures. He was shifted to SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar, where surgical intervention and treatment followed; the dismembered genitalia were brought to the hospital in a plastic bag by a Sub‑Inspector. On 26 February 2023 an FIR (No. 32/2023) under Section 309 IPC was registered against the appellant alleging attempted suicide. The appellant’s wife filed a complaint on 1 March 2023 and served legal notices, but local police did not register an FIR against the officers allegedly responsible.

The appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR against the police, constitution of an SIT or referral to the CBI, and filed a Section 482 CrPC petition to quash FIR No. 32 of 2023. The High Court directed a preliminary inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police and declined to quash the counter‑FIR, holding that investigation was in its infancy. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the complaint and medical evidence mandatorily required FIR registration, whether a transfer to CBI was necessary given conflict of interest and institutional bias, and whether FIR No. 32 was mala fide.

Relying on Lalita Kumari and subsequent precedents, the Court held that the complaint and uncontroverted medical records disclosed cognizable offences and that a preliminary inquiry by the very local officers implicated would be impermissible. The Court found the suicide narrative incompatible with the nature and extent of injuries and noted systemic attempts at cover‑up. Applying precedents including D.K. Basu, Mohd. Anis, R.S. Sodhi, CPDR (West Bengal) and Bhajan Lal, the Court treated CBI reference as warranted in exceptional circumstances where local investigation was tainted or conflicted. The Court quashed FIR No. 32 of 2023 as manifestly fabricated, directed the Director CBI to register an RC within seven days and constitute a SIT, ordered that all enquiry material, medical records, CCTV and forensic evidence be handed over to the CBI, directed arrest of responsible police officials within one month, required completion of investigation within 90 days, and directed the Union Territory to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 to the appellant recoverable from guilty officers. The CBI was directed to file a status report by 10 November 2025 and the matter was listed on 17 November 2025.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 876 Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. Union of Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel (name not specified in the judgment) For the Respondent(s): Additional Advocate General / State counsel (name not specified in the judgment)