Srinagar: The J&K high court on Monday refused government plea to stay Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar’s orders to register FIR against a DySP in connection with the ‘cold blooded murder’ of a 26-year-old youth at Tengpora here on July 10.
“Record can’t be called (from CJM),” a bench of Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir responded to the plea by additional advocate general Mohammad Amin Rathore during the hearing a petition by the ruling PDP-BJP alliance against the CJM directions to SSP Srinagar to get FIR registered against DySP Yasir Qadri and other police personnel for killing Shabir Ahmad Mir, a school dropout who worked as a mason to support his family. The state’s plea is based on the contention that an FIR (regarding stone pelting incident) stands registered and 2nd FIR cannot be registered for the same occurrence.
“Virtually they are two occurrence..a public servant cannot exceed his power,” the court said after briefly hearing the AAG Rathore who said that under Part V chapter XIV of code of criminal procedure, there can be registration of only one FIR for cognizable offence.
“In the present case (FIR no 89/2016) has been lodged of a stone pelting incident and same is under investigation which is conducted on war footing. In addition to it, district Magistrate Srinagar is also conducting an enquiry of the same incident about the circumstances in which death of one person has taken place,” he said, contending that there is no scope under law for a direction to lodge 2nd FIR as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar.
“The direction by (CJM) also runs contrary to the verdict of the Apex court in which, it has been held that the Magistrate while passing direction under 156 (3) of CrPC has to disclose reasons upon which (it) was satisfied to pass the direction,” he said, contending the CJMs order does not disclose any reason.
“The directions are unsound also for the reason that the CJM has no power to pass any direction under 156 (3) against (SSP) as the section empowers magistrate to issue direction in the name of SHO of police station and not against Superintendent of Police.”