Criminal Courts Must Be Proactive, Not Passive: J&K & Ladakh High Court Quashes Fractured Prosecution
Holding that criminal courts are not meant to function as passive recipients of police reports
Shivaji Rathore 26-Dec-2025
Criminal Courts Must Be Proactive, Not Passive: J&K & Ladakh High Court Quashes Fractured Prosecution
Holding that criminal courts are not meant to function as passive recipients of police reports, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphatically underscored that from the very presentation of a final police report (challan), courts must apply judicial acumen to test whether the case discloses a complete, coherent factual foundation warranting trialor whether it is a factually fractured prosecution destined to collapse. These far reaching observations were made by Justice Rahul Bharti while quashing a long-pending criminal case, warning that such misconceived prosecutions are among the underlying causes of the snail pace of criminal administration of justice.
such like criminal case/s is one of the underlying causes of snail pace of criminal administration of justice taking place in criminal court/s…” — Justice Rahul Bharti
Background of the Case
The Court was seized of a petition filed by Sunny Kashyap invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an FIR and the consequential Final Police Report (challan) seeking his prosecution under Sections 366, 376 and 343 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The prosecution originated from a handwritten complaint in 2015 by the father of the alleged victim (“Miss X”), claiming that his daughter stated to be 16–17 years old had been forcibly kidnapped by the petitioner for sexual intercourse. Acting on this complaint, an FIR under Section 363 RPC was registered. Strange Lapses at the Investigation Stage
The Court recorded that the victim was allegedly recovered from the petitioner’s possession shortly thereafter. However, Justice Bharti found it “very strange” that no arrest was made despite the alleged offence being cognizable. More significantly, the medical examination determined the victim’s age to be 20 years, ruled out any recent sexual intercourse, and this was reiterated by the victim herself in her statement under Section 164-A CrPC squarely contradicting the father’s claim that she was a minor.
Commenting on this discrepancy, the Court observed that the incorrect mention of age had a direct bearing on the mindset with which the FIR was registered an issue the investigating agency failed to address meaningfully.
Habeas Corpus Proceedings Ignored in the Challan
The Court further noted that the petitioner, faced with criminal accusations, had approached the High Court in September 2015 through a habeas corpus petition, asserting that the victim was a major and that both had solemnised marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jammu.
In those proceedings: The victim appeared before the Court, Admitted she had married of her own free will, and Expressed her desire to return to her parents.
Her statement was recorded and the petition was disposed of. Strikingly, when the police presented the challan after a delay of more than six years, projecting the petitioner as an absconder, no reference whatsoever was made to the habeas corpus proceedings or the victim’s statements recorded therein. Regressive and Stereotyped Investigation
Critically examining the investigation, the Court held that the police had acted with a regressive and stereotyped mindset, deliberately ignoring elementary facts plainly visible on record. Such omissions, the Court remarked, appeared conscious and calculated, as if excluding obvious facts could insulate the investigation from judicial scrutiny. Justice Bharti made a pointed observation regarding the complainant’s misquotation of his daughter’s age, noting that this could not be attributed to loss of memory, especially when documentary proof of date of birth was available. Yet, the Investigating Officer never confronted the complainant on this issue.
The Court also noted that while the complainant furnished complete particulars of the petitioner in the FIR, he did not disclose the source of such information, indicating that material facts were known but deliberately withheld. Suppression of Material Facts and Blinkered Investigation
The record was also silent on how and on whose identification the victim was recovered from the petitioner. Observing this, the Court remarked:
“More was kept suppressed rather than divulged and disclosed before the criminal court as if a criminal court is supposed to act on a blinkered mode of reading and understanding…”
Justice Bharti further noted that the same Investigating Officer who later pleaded ignorance had himself produced the victim before the High Court in the earlier habeas corpus proceedings making the omission in the challan all the more glaring.
Prosecution Rooted in Persecution, Not Justice
On an overall assessment, the Court concluded that the investigation culminating in the challan was conducted with a mindset to torment the petitioner for having entered into an inter-religious marriage. Allowing such a prosecution to continue, the Court held, would amount to nothing but “sheer persecution of the petitioner at the cost of high ends of justice.”
Criminal Courts Must Scan the Case at the Threshold
At a doctrinal level, Justice Bharti laid down a clear expectation from criminal courts:
It is always meant and expected from a criminal court to be proactive rather than being passive from the very presentation of final police report (challan) onwards… to figure out whether the case presented is a factually fractured and cavitated one just for the sake of booking of an accused.”
He further cautioned that entertaining such cases overburdens an already load-ridden docket system, contributing directly to delay in criminal justice delivery. Exercise of Inherent Powers and Final Outcome Holding that this was precisely the kind of case warranting the exercise of inherent powers, the High Court quashed: The FIR,
The Final Police Report dated 25.07.2022, and
The entire criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunny Kashyap vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
