1 76 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 431/2025 B. Afzal Ahamed. ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Adv Ms. Ahra Syed, Adv Ms. Mahajabeen, Adv and Ms. Monisa Manzoor, Adv. V/s UT Th. Senior Superintendent of Police Pulwama and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub, GA Mr. Zamir Abdullah, Adv. Mr. Zahir Abdullah, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER(ORAL) 18.11.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged FIR No. 14/2025 for offences under Section 420, 406, 506, 467 IPC registered with Police Station Rajpora, Pulwama. 2. Heard and considered. 3. The main ground that has been urged for assailing the impugned FIR is that the contents of the said FIR do not disclose commission of any offence, much less a cognizable offence. 2 4. In the above context it is necessary to have a look at the contents of the impugned FIR. The translated version of the same is reproduced as under; “Respected Sir, The contents of this complaint are that this time police station received a written docket in urdu for lodging of an FIR From S.I. Ghulam Hassan belt No: 191/B, Officer preliminary enquiry (P.E) which reads as under:- From police Rajpora to office of police station Pulwama. Report with regard to PE. Respected sir, It is hereby submitted that the undersigned received P.E from the office of the police station vide No: CRB/CLT/M/25/652 dt: 17/01/2025 from the office of the police station Pulwama and during enquiry contact was made with the accused persons namely 1. Mohammad Afzal Pasha 2. Mohamad Rafiq 3. Santhal Kumar, residents of Chennai Tamil Nadu via phone. The above named accused has been appraised with regard to other said matter. The above named persons have been directed to report in the police station on 27/01/2025 and in this regard the concerned police stations of the above named persons have been informed through Signal that they shall direct the above named persons that they shall present themselves before above said police station but they did not appear. The statement of some of the witnesses have been recorded with respect to above said matter. That as per the statement of the witnesses and information reveals the commission of offences u/s’s 506, 476, 406, 420/IPC. Therefore, through this report it is requested that further enclosed with the report dt: 02/02/2025, Sd/I.O PS Rajpora signatures in English. Action initiated by Police- As per the Docket the above said case is cognizable offence, therefore an FIR vide No: 14/2025 stands registered for the offences u/s’s 506, 476, 406, 420/IPC. The investigation of the above said case has been entrusted into the hands of S.O Ghulam Hassan belt No: 191/B. The detailed report shall be submitted to I.O, the complainant has been sent to I.O for completion of the formalities of FIR Sd/-SHO P/S Rajpora” 5. From a perusal of the afore-quoted contents of the impugned FIR, it appears that some preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the 3 police, the result whereof has been forwarded to Police Station Pulwama. It further appears that statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded by the police during the preliminary verification and on that basis, offences under Section 420, 406, 506, 467 IPC are stated to have been disclosed against the petitioner. 6. The FIR does not mention any details with regard to the allegations which form the basis of its registration. An FIR though not an encyclopedia of the crime, must contain details about the cognizable offences such as date, time and the location of the incident. It must also contain the facts constituting the offence and names and addresses of the victims witnesses and accused persons, if identified. Merely by recording that the file of preliminary enquiry has been received and that from the statements of the witnesses recorded during the preliminary verification cognizable offences are made out, do not satisfy the essentials of a valid FIR. It was incumbent upon the concerned SHO to frame a brief gist of the allegations which form the basis of registration of FIR against the petitioner and record the same as the first information report. Instead of doing so the SHO concerned has acted in a mechanical manner while registering the impugned FIR. 7. Section 154 of the CrPC clearly lays down that the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence has to be reduced to writing. The purpose mentioning the brief details of the information in the FIR is two fold. One that informant comes to know whether the FIR contains true account of the information and secondly it gives an idea to the accused about the nature of allegations levelled against him. 4 In the present case no information relating to the commission of cognizable offences forms part of the contents of the impugned FIR. The same is therefore, not sustainable in law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is set aside, leaving it open to respondent No. 2 to register a proper FIR containing the details of the alleged offences. 9. The petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 18.11.2025 Sarvar