Srinagar: In a significant ruling that clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in criminal procedure, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that a complainant has the absolute legal right to approach either the police or the Magistrate directly when a cognizable offence is alleged to have been committed.
The judgement is expected to have wide-ranging implications in criminal jurisprudence and protect the rights of complainants who often face procedural hurdles when seeking justice. The case was argued by Advocate Tariq Lone, who raised this pivotal issue and urged the court to settle the confusion prevalent among both the legal community and lower courts.
While delivering its ruling, the Hon’ble High Court clarified that there is no legal bar for a complainant to directly approach the Judicial Magistrate for filing a complaint, even when the alleged offence is cognizable in nature. The court reaffirmed that the option to go to the police under Section 154 of CrPC or approach a Magistrate under Section 200 of CrPC remains with the complainant.
Speaking on the development, Advocate Tariq Lone explained, “Until now, many Judicial Magistrates would routinely refuse to entertain such complaints and would direct complainants to approach the police instead. This left many complainants in a helpless cycle, especially when they sought to avoid police for valid reasons, including fear or lack of trust.”
He added that the legal community often found itself in a difficult position when lower courts refused to exercise their powers under the law.
“Lawyers would return the brief to clients with the advice to approach the police, and the complainant would land in the very situation they tried to avoid by initially choosing the Magistrate route,” he said.
The court’s interpretation now offers clarity: the complainant has an unequivocal legal choice — they may either lodge an FIR with the police or file a complaint directly with the Magistrate, regardless of whether the offence is cognizable or not.
Legal experts have welcomed the ruling, calling it a “citizen-centric interpretation” of criminal law, which upholds access to justice and strengthens procedural rights. The decision is expected to guide judicial officers and prevent unnecessary dismissal or redirection of genuine complaints by lower courts in future.
Comments are closed.