High Court quashes 35-year-old case against CRPF officer in Pattan

Court sets aside prosecution sanction in 1990 Kashmir FIR, citing delay and lack of evidence

Chandigarh | August 3, 2025 11:06 PM IST

The court noted that prolonged delays could not be justified, especially when no fresh evidence had come to light. (File Photo)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has quashed a 35-year-old criminal case against a former Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer, calling the prosecution sanction “flawed” and lacking supporting evidence. The FIR, registered in 1990 in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pattan police station, had accused the officer of illegal custody and disappearance during anti-militancy operations.

The case was filed under Sections 364 and 344 of the now-repealed Ranbir Penal Code, which governed Jammu and Kashmir at the time. Section 364 relates to kidnapping or abduction with intent to murder, while Section 344 deals with wrongful confinement for more than 10 days.

Ajay Kumar Pandey, who had joined the CRPF as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1986, was posted in Baramulla district as part of a special task force. A local resident, Peerzada Gh. Mohd., alleged in his complaint that CRPF personnel had taken away his son, Peer Mohd. Shafi, and that his whereabouts were unknown. The FIR was registered on the basis of this complaint.

But for years, the case saw no progress. It wasn’t until 2007, 17 years later, that the Jammu and Kashmir government sought permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs to prosecute the officer. The central government gave its nod only in 2010, by which time two decades had passed since the alleged incident. The court noted that such prolonged delays could not be justified, especially when no fresh evidence had come to light.

The officer challenged the prosecution sanction orders issued in 2010 and 2011, calling them arbitrary and factually flawed. His counsel argued that a 1992 Court of Inquiry conducted by the CRPF’s 46th Battalion had found no evidence of his involvement. He had even appeared before the investigating officer at the time, contrary to claims that he did not cooperate with the probe.

Further, the counsel pointed out that the officer’s unit was not even deployed in the area where the alleged raid took place. The court noted that the complainant had wrongly implicated a decorated officer and that “no raid was ever conducted by the petitioner.”

Justice Bhardwaj came down heavily on the way the prosecution sanction was granted. It said such sanctions are not a “mere formality,” but a serious legal safeguard meant to prevent baseless charges against government officials. In this case, the court said, the sanctioning authorities failed to explain why they ignored the Court of Inquiry’s clean chit or what fresh material they relied on.

Story continues below this ad

“There is no cogent and objective material… showing prima facie involvement of the petitioner,” the court observed.

It also cited Supreme Court judgments that held prosecution sanctions invalid when there was an inordinate delay in seeking them. Referring to the 2002 Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar case — where the FIR was quashed after a 13- to 15-year delay — the court said the present case, with a 35-year gap, was clearly in the same category.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that only a full trial could reveal the truth. “Acceptance of such an argument would render the entire sanction process meaningless and leave officials defenseless against malicious complaints,” the bench said.

Editor's Choice