Compensation Requires Proof of Fundamental Rights Violation, Mala Fide or Gross Abuse of Criminal Process
SRINAGAR, August 13: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the mere closure of a criminal case does not automatically confer a right on the accused to claim monetary compensation from the State.
The Court held that compensation under writ jurisdiction is an exceptional public law remedy and can be granted only when there is material establishing a violation of fundamental rights, coupled with mala fide conduct, gross abuse of process or demonstrable harm.
The ruling was passed by Justice Shahzad Azeem while dismissing a petition filed by four persons—Javid Ahmad Lone, Raja Ikhlaq Akbar, Safeer Ahmad Gadwal and Basit Khan—who had sought compensation of ₹50 lakh each alleging wrongful implication in a drug-related case.
The petitioners had been booked in an FIR registered under Sections 8A, 27B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case related to allegations concerning cross-border smuggling of narcotic drugs and suspected investment of proceeds from the alleged illegal trade in movable and immovable properties.
According to the police, the FIR was registered on the basis of credible information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. However, after investigation, the case was closed after the investigating agency concluded that there was insufficient admissible evidence to enable the filing of a charge sheet before the trial court.
The petitioners approached the High Court alleging that they had been wrongfully implicated. They claimed that the FIR was vague and based on a concocted story, while also asserting that no contraband had been recovered from them.
They further alleged that the criminal proceedings had been initiated with an ulterior motive to harass and extort them and sought compensation for the alleged violation of their fundamental rights.
The High Court observed that since the criminal case had already been formally closed by the police, there was no requirement to examine the petitioners’ prayer seeking quashing of the FIR.
However, while considering the compensation claim, the Court found no material establishing that the FIR had been registered with mala fide intention or an abuse of the criminal process.
The Court noted that the registration of an FIR, by itself, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights merely because the investigation subsequently ends in closure.
It further observed that the case diary did not indicate that the FIR had been registered without any basis or with an oblique motive. There was also no material suggesting any lapse, high-handedness or mala fide conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer.
The Court reasoned that if the investigating officer had intended to harass or extort the petitioners, he could have manipulated or fabricated evidence and proceeded with a false charge sheet, thereby forcing them to face a prolonged criminal trial.
Instead, the investigation was closed after the officer found that the available evidence was insufficient to support prosecution.
The Court held that this conduct reflected the bona fide nature of the investigation rather than any malicious intention.
“The closure itself is a manifestation of the bona fide intention of the Investigating Officer,” the Court observed.
The High Court accordingly held that the petitioners’ claim for compensation was misconceived and unsupported by material evidence establishing mala fides or violation of fundamental rights.
The petition was therefore dismissed.
The judgment makes it clear that although a person may challenge unlawful, malicious or abusive criminal proceedings, the eventual closure of an FIR for want of sufficient evidence does not, by itself, create an automatic entitlement to monetary compensation from the Government.
Advocate Waseem Ramzan appeared for the petitioners, while Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah represented the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. (KNC)
