Jammu And Kashmir High Court Declines Reinvestigation In Disrobing Case | Petitioner Can Seek Alteration Of Charges Before Trial Court | Writ Jurisdiction Not Invokable Unless Manifest Error Or Grave Injustice
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar held that no interference was required at this stage under writ or supervisory jurisdiction in a matter seeking reinvestigation or alteration of charges. The court directed that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the trial court for redressal of her grievances either at the stage of further investigation or alteration of charge. It disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all issues before the trial court during trial proceedings. The court clarified that intervention under Article 226 was not called for in the absence of manifest or apparent error on record.
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking a direction for reinvestigation or, in the alternative, alteration of charges in FIR No. 47/2024 registered at Police Station Doda. The case pertained to a challan titled “P/S Doda vs. Pyari Devi and ors.”, where only accused Pyari Devi was charge-sheeted for offences under Section 325 IPC. Initially, the FIR was lodged for offences under Sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. However, these offences appeared to have been dropped during investigation.
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to conduct reinvestigation or alter the charges by adding an offence under Section 354 IPC against the private respondents. The petitioner submitted through counsel that the police were hand in glove with the private respondents and conducted the investigation in violation of law, thus requiring intervention of the High Court to ensure the sanctity of the criminal justice process.
It was contended that the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 CrPC indicated commission of an offence under Section 354 IPC, and the investigating officer failed to disclose or incorporate this aspect in the charge sheet. The petitioner alleged that on 10.03.2024, the accused persons trespassed into her room and disrobed her. However, as per the charge sheet, investigation revealed that on that date, the complainant had cut a tree on disputed land, leading to heated arguments with Pyari Devi. The matter escalated into a scuffle in which the complainant received injuries from fists and punches.
The charge sheet further recorded that due to old enmity, the complainant made false accusations about being disrobed by the two sons of Pyari Devi with abetment by her husband, whereas in fact no such incident had taken place. The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations of disrobing or outraging modesty, and only offence under Section 325 IPC was made out against Pyari Devi.
The petitioner claimed before the court that her statement under Section 164 CrPC was not duly appreciated by the investigating officer and that reinvestigation or alteration of charges was essential for justice. The court was urged to exercise its writ jurisdiction to ensure that appropriate offences were included in the charge sheet before trial commenced.
Justice Sanjay Parihar recorded that all the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner before the High Court could be suitably raised before the trial court as well, either at the stage of drawing up of charges or later. He stated that even if these points were not taken earlier, once the petitioner had made a statement under Section 164 CrPC, which she claimed had not been duly appreciated by the investigating officer while concluding the charge sheet, if she repeated and maintained this statement during the trial, it would suffice her case and enable her to apply suitably for alteration of charges.
He observed that in this background, intervention by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction was not required since the charge sheet had been drawn based on an investigation process that was not alleged to be tainted.
He noted that the petitioner, without agitating these aspects before the trial court, sought intervention from the High Court, which was bound to cause prejudice to the accused.
He recorded that after hearing counsel at length and perusing the record, no interference was called for at this stage under writ or supervisory jurisdiction, as such jurisdiction was not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the error was manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings.
He stated that such jurisdiction was exercisable only when a subordinate authority acted in ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law.
He also recorded that such intervention could be made to prevent grave injustice or gross failure, if occasioned thereby, and referred to the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2003(6) SCC 675.
He observed that in view of these circumstances, the petitioner was better left to approach the trial court for redressal of her grievances, whether for further investigation or alteration of charges, and until that eventuality, she could not claim that the trial court was proceeding erroneously to her detriment.
He further noted that since the charge sheet had been filed and the trial was yet to commence, the petitioner had full opportunity to bring to the notice of the trial court any lacunae which she claimed had been left by the investigating agency, and she was at liberty to approach the trial court for proper investigation and redressal of her grievances and to persuade the court accordingly if she succeeded.
The court directed: “The petition is, therefore, disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Kumar Parihar, Advocate in line
Case Title: Parveen Begum v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: WP (Crl) No. 35/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar
