The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently quashed an order issued by the superintendent of police, City South, Jammu on a re-investigation in a case already closed by his superior, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. The reason for the quashing of the order of the junior was ‘Not Admitted’.
Petitioner Ajeet Chopra has challenged the SP’s order of August 3, 2020 which had said respondent has, despite the investigation in the case under Section 380 IPC registered with Police Station, Satwari having been closed as Not Admitted by the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu directed further investigation of the case.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner and an investigation was set in motion. After investigation of the case, the investigating officer arrived at a conclusion that allegations against the Petitioner are not substantiated and as such, a report in this regard was submitted by the investigating officer to Dy Superintendent of Police, SDPO, City South, Jammu, who in turn, vide his report dated 02.07.2020 submitted the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.
It is the further case of the Petitioner that SSP, Jammu accepted the recommendation of the Dy. Superintendent of Police and vide his order dated 06.07.2020 accorded approval to the conclusion of the investigation of the case as not admitted.
It has been contended that Superintendent of Police City South, Jammu surprisingly, after accord of the approval to closure of the case by SSP, Jammu issued the impugned order observing that the investigation of the case has not been carried out in professional manner and thereafter transferred the investigation to incharge of Police Post, Chatha.
Ayushman Kotwa , Counsel for Petitioner further Contended 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.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed as per the response submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu that on the recommendations made by the Sub Divisional Police Officer (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.
The Court is therefore of the view that what has been submitted by respondent No. 2 (SSP, Jammu) in his affidavit nothing remains to be determined because the said respondent has admitted the position that 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.
It was held by the bench that the course adopted by respondent No.3 in this 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 (Superintendent of Police, City South, Jammu) 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.
“For the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 03.08.2020 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 PoliceDepartment are at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against respondent No.3 for having acted in a manner which smacks of insubordination”, the order reads.