The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prohibit registration of an FIR or police investigation into offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. The embargo under the provision operates only at the stage of cognizance by the Court and requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant.

Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie seeking quashing of FIR No.60/2020 registered at Police Station Sumbal, Bandipora, for offences under Sections 188, 269 and 353 IPC.

The FIR was lodged during the COVID-19 pandemic when the District Magistrate, Bandipora, had imposed restrictions under Section 144 CrPC to prevent spread of the disease. The petitioner and co-accused were intercepted by a police patrol party while moving in violation of the lockdown orders. It was alleged that they failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation and the petitioner assaulted the police personnel on duty.

The petitioner, claiming to be a journalist, contended that the FIR was illegal because no complaint had been filed by the competent authority as mandated by Section 195 CrPC and Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. He argued that the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation were vitiated on this ground.

The Court rejected the contention outright. It clarified that while Section 195 CrPC bars a Court from taking cognizance without a written complaint by the public servant concerned, there is “neither any bar nor any prohibition in registration of FIR and investigation of the case”. The embargo comes into play only after completion of investigation and at the cognizance stage.

The judgment noted that in the present case the District Magistrate had in fact filed a complaint dated 11.04.2020 under Section 195 CrPC, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement. The Court observed that the petitioner had approached the High Court prematurely at the pre-cognizance stage and that all his objections — including alleged violation of Section 195 CrPC — could be effectively raised before the trial court at the stage of charge or discharge.

The Bench emphasised the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC: “This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not required to and, in fact, cannot enter into the factual assertions made by the petitioner, as the same would necessitate appreciation of evidence, a function which is exclusively reserved for the trial Court.”

The Court further referred to Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which permits prosecution under any applicable enactment where an act constitutes an offence under two or more laws, subject only to the bar against double punishment. It held that the Investigating Officer has discretion to file the charge-sheet under appropriate provisions based on material collected, and the trial court is competent to examine prima facie culpability, add or alter charges under Section 216 CrPC, or discharge the accused if no case is made out.

The petition was accordingly dismissed. The trial court record has been directed to be transmitted forthwith so that the trial proceeds without further delay. The Court made it clear that all observations in the judgment are only for deciding the quashing petition and shall not influence the trial on merits.

Cause Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.
Case No.: CRM(M) No.141/2020 (Judgment dated 23.03.2026)

Click HERE for full Judgment