In a significant judicial reminder on procedural discipline, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stressed that trial magistrates must personally draft or dictate interim orders rather than relying on subordinate staff. The Court made this observation while dismissing a plea filed by Ashok Kumar Bhagat, who sought to quash the framing of charges against him in a forgery case.
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The petitioner had moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the charge order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, R. S. Pura, Jammu. He also sought to quash the final police report filed under Section 193 BNSS.
Ashok Kumar Bhagat, identifying himself as a 1947 West Pakistan Refugee and the sole legal heir in a revenue inheritance case, contended that the impugned order lacked judicial reasoning and did not reflect proper application of mind. He also argued that the charge framing was done without due legal process and that the accusations of cheating and forgery were baseless.
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, after examining the FIR, the final police report, and the trial court documents, observed that the case involved prima facie cognizable offences including cheating, forgery, and fabrication of evidence.
“It is a settled legal position that where an FIR or Final Police Report discloses the commission of cognizable offences, courts should refrain from interfering unless there is clinching exculpatory evidence,” the Court noted.
The Court highlighted that, at the stage of framing charges, the judge need not conduct a mini-trial. Instead, it is sufficient if a prima facie case or even a strong suspicion is established on the basis of the prosecution’s case.
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Clarifies MCI Guidelines on Non-Medical Faculty Appointments
Justice Wani emphasized that the registration of the FIR, subsequent investigation, and the filing of the final police report were in accordance with law. However, he acknowledged the petitioner’s concern that the order of framing charges appeared irregular in its structure and lacked legal depth.
Raising concern over a procedural trend in lower courts, the High Court strongly criticized the practice of judicial officers delegating order writing to clerical staff.
“It is being observed that most of trial Magistrates entrust the drafting of the interim orders including orders regarding framing of charge to the subordinate staff, upon hearing the cases, under their verbal directions,” Justice Wani recorded.
“The Magistrates are required to either write the interim orders under their own hand or let them be typed in their presence and under their own dictation.”
Although the petition was dismissed on merit, the Court extended a significant procedural relief. Justice Wani directed the trial magistrate to reconsider the framed charges with due diligence.
“The Trial Court shall see whether in the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the offences mentioned in the order dated 06.10.2024 are attracted or not. He shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the Counsel for the petitioner in that behalf and shall modify or alter the charge, if any, required in accordance with the law.”
This decision reiterates the importance of judicial accountability and procedural sanctity, particularly in the initial stages of a criminal trial. The Court's ruling serves as a reminder that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done—beginning with how court orders are written.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT Of J&K
