Srinagar, August 7, KDC: A Srinagar court has set aside a lower court order that initiated suo motu criminal proceedings against Senior Superintendent of Police Srinagar Dr G V Sundeep Chakravarthy, holding that while the Magistrate was justified in expressing concern over repeated non-execution of judicial warrants, several of the adverse observations recorded against the officer were unnecessary at the preliminary stage and liable to be expunged.
Allowing a criminal revision petition, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Naushad Ahmad Khan quashed the July 6 order passed by the City Judge Judicial Magistrate First Class Srinagar and directed closure of the suo motu proceedings, observing that continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose after the accused whose non-production triggered the controversy had already been produced before the trial court.
The revisional court, however, made it clear that the Magistrate’s concern over repeated failure to execute judicial processes was “bona fide” and stemmed from his judicial duty to safeguard the authority and efficacy of the judicial process.
The controversy arose after the Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, holding prima facie that the SSP had failed to discharge his statutory obligations under Sections 24 and 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Act in relation to repeated non-execution of warrants.
The Magistrate had also made several strongly worded observations, including describing the officer as the “biggest impediment and hurdle in the administration of justice” and stating that the “whole police machinery” of Srinagar and Bandipora had “collapsed.”
While declining to accept the SSP’s argument that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, the court held that every criminal court possesses adequate authority to ensure compliance with its lawful orders.
“The repeated non-execution of judicial warrants and failure to furnish compliance reports undoubtedly constituted a matter legitimately engaging judicial concern,” the court observed, adding that “a warrant issued by a competent criminal court is not a request but a judicial command enforceable in accordance with law.”
The Sessions Court held that the Magistrate’s anxiety over repeated non-compliance “cannot therefore be characterised as wholly unfounded or actuated by extraneous considerations.”
However, the revisional court found that the Magistrate crossed the permissible limits by recording what effectively amounted to concluded findings before giving the SSP the statutory opportunity of being heard under Section 223 of the BNSS.
The court observed that remarks stating the officer had “wilfully, deliberately and purposely” failed to execute warrants, had become an “accomplice”, was the “biggest impediment and hurdle in the administration of justice”, had a “habit of sitting over the warrants” and had prima facie committed the offence “possess the character of concluded findings rather than tentative prima facie satisfaction.”
It held that such observations substantially diluted the safeguard intended by Section 223, which requires that a public servant first be heard before further proceedings are taken.
The court also held that observations declaring that the “whole police machinery of District Srinagar as well as District Bandipora has collapsed”, alleging that officers were “showing full brotherhood” and describing the SSP as the “biggest impediment” travelled “considerably beyond what was necessary” for deciding whether proceedings deserved to be initiated.
Stressing judicial restraint, the court relied upon the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, observing that disparaging remarks against individuals or institutions should be made only where they are strictly necessary for deciding the controversy, supported by evidence and after affording the affected person an opportunity of hearing.
The court also relied upon A M Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and K, A Judicial Officer, In re to underline that moderation in judicial language is an essential attribute of the judicial process.
The Sessions Court stressed that the judiciary and the police are complementary institutions whose relationship must be guided by mutual constitutional respect.
“The criminal justice system is sustained not merely by statutory powers but equally by institutional confidence. Courts and the police perform distinct constitutional and statutory functions, yet their roles are complementary and inseparable,” the court observed. It added that “institutional friction between these two organs can never advance the cause of justice.”
Taking note that the accused whose non-production had triggered the proceedings was subsequently produced before the competent court by the District Police, the Sessions Court held that the original purpose underlying issuance of the warrants had already been achieved and that continuation of criminal proceedings against the SSP would neither advance the administration of criminal justice nor serve any useful public purpose.
While setting aside the impugned order, the court also issued a detailed framework to streamline future execution of judicial processes in Srinagar. It directed that summons, warrants and other processes intended to be executed within Srinagar should ordinarily be sent directly to the Station House Officer having territorial jurisdiction or, in exceptional cases, to the Additional Superintendent of Police Headquarters functioning as the nodal officer.
The court further directed the SSP Srinagar to establish an effective mechanism for monitoring execution of judicial warrants and to issue standing instructions to subordinate officers for strict compliance with court processes.
Allowing the revision petition, the sessions court held that all adverse observations in the Magistrate’s order attributing deliberate misconduct, obstruction of justice, habitual disobedience, collapse of the police machinery or any finding touching upon the SSP’s culpability before completion of the statutory procedure “shall stand expunged and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the allegations.”
The suo motu proceedings initiated against the officer were accordingly ordered to stand closed. (KDC)
