“Action Under Law” Endorsement as Deemed Direction to Register an FIR – A Comprehensive Commentary on Shakir-ul-Hassan v. Union Territory through Police Station Anantnag (J&K High Court, 30 May 2025)

1. Introduction

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar Bench, in a composite judgment dated 30 May 2025, decided three connected matters:

CRM(M) No. 216/2025 – petition under s. 528 BNSS (akin to s. 482 CrPC) seeking quashment of FIR 83/2025 (s. 69 & 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita “BNS”).
Bail App No. 62/2025 – anticipatory bail for accused 1 (Shakir-ul-Hassan).
Bail App No. 72/2025 – anticipatory bail for accused 2 & 3 (Mohammad Ashraf Bhat, Javid Ahmad Bhat).

The litigation arose out of allegations that accused 1 lured the complainant (R-2) into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage and, aided by his brothers (accused 2 & 3), raped and assaulted her. The accused challenged the very registration of the FIR, disclaimed any wrongdoing, and sought protection from arrest.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court refused to quash FIR 83/2025 or the investigation in so far as it concerns accused 1, holding that cognisable offences are disclosed.
It quashed the FIR and investigation against accused 2 & 3 for lack of specific inculpatory material, rendering their bail plea infructuous.
Accused 1’s anticipatory bail was rejected; the Court held that custodial investigation was necessary, inter alia to secure electronic evidence that risked destruction.
A significant point of law was crystallised: when a Magistrate forwards a complaint with the endorsement “take action under law”, that endorsement empowers and obliges the SHO to register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognisable offence, even if the covering order separately mentioned an “enquiry”.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Farooq Ahmad v. State of J&K (J&K HC 2023) – distinguished. There the Magistrate had expressly limited the SHO to a preliminary enquiry; here the SHO received a written directive to “take action under law”.
Supreme Court authorities on Magistrate-referred complaints:
• Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 62
• Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 6 SCC 273
Both recognise the duty of police to register an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognisable offence.
False-promise-of-marriage line of cases:
• Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
• Rajnish Singh v. State of UP, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279
• Biswajyoti Chatterji v. State of West Bengal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 404
• Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 28 Apr 2025
Anticipatory bail jurisprudence:
• Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, (1980) 2 SCC 565
• Sushila Aggarwal (2020) and Pratibha Manchanda (2023)

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Validity of FIR

The endorsement take action under law was “under the Magistrate’s signatures”. That, the Court held, cannot be read down to mere fact-finding; it is broad enough to include FIR registration.
Once such endorsement reaches the SHO and the complaint discloses cognisable offences (rape under s. 69 BNS; assault under s. 351(3)), s. 173 BNSS / s. 154 CrPC duty to register FIR is triggered.
The Court distinguished Farooq Ahmad because in that case the SHO was directed only to enquire; here the SHO never received a restrictive direction.

B. Quashing vis-à-vis Accused 2 & 3

Applying the test in Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988), uncontroverted allegations must disclose an offence. None did against the brothers: no abetment, no specific act, mere presence.
Therefore continued investigation against them would be an “abuse of process”.

C. Refusal of Anticipatory Bail to Accused 1

Offence is serious and carries a significant sentence.
Electronic evidence (WhatsApp chats, emails) is central and may be tampered with if the accused is at large.
Victim-centric approach: Granting anticipatory bail at inception could intimidate the prosecutrix and impede a fair probe.
Hence, balancing liberty and societal interest favoured refusal.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Procedural Clarification: In J&K, and arguably pan-India, police may rely on a Magistrate’s “action under law” endorsement as carte blanche to register an FIR where offences appear cognisable, even when the covering order mentions “enquiry”.
Filtering of Vicarious Liability: The Court reaffirmed that bare, omnibus allegations against relatives will invite quashment at the threshold – reducing misuse of criminal process in relationship disputes.
Anticipatory Bail Doctrine Enriched: The judgment illustrates how the risk of evidence destruction (particularly electronic) can decisively tilt the scales against pre-arrest bail in sexual-offence cases.
BNS Jurisprudence: As one of the first High Court decisions on s. 69 BNS (successor to s. 376 IPC “rape”) and s. 351(3) (successor provisions on assault), the ruling provides early interpretive guidance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

BNSS / BNS: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaces the Indian Penal Code; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaces CrPC. The section numbers in this case correspond to the new codes (e.g., s. 69 BNS = rape).
“Misconception of fact” (s. 69 Explanation-II): If consent to sexual intercourse is obtained by deceit – such as a false promise of marriage which the man never intends to fulfil – the consent is legally invalid.
Anticipatory Bail: Pre-arrest bail under s. 438 CrPC (now s. 482 BNSS). It gives conditional immunity from arrest, subject to Court’s discretion.
Quashment Petition (s. 528 BNSS): Equivalent to old s. 482 CrPC – the Inherent Powers provision enabling High Courts to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.
“Take Action Under Law” Endorsement: A shorthand used by Magistrates when forwarding complaints to police. The present judgment treats it as an implicit authorisation – indeed, a mandate – to register an FIR if a cognisable offence is apparent.

5. Conclusion

Justice Sanjay Dhar’s decision in Shakir-ul-Hassan lays down a two-fold precedent:

A Magistrate’s forwarding endorsement to take action under law suffices to legitimise and necessitate FIR registration where the facts show cognisable offences – thus aligning procedural formalities with the constitutional mandate in Lalita Kumari.
Merely roping in family members without concrete allegations will lead to quashment at the threshold, protecting individuals from vexatious prosecution.

Simultaneously, the Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy; when electronic evidence and prosecutrix protection are at stake, custodial interrogation may be indispensable. The ruling therefore harmonises individual liberty with the pragmatic needs of criminal investigation and sets an early interpretive compass for the new penal codes.

“Action Under Law” Endorsement as Deemed Direction to Register an FIR – Comment on Shakir-ul-Hassan v. Union Territory through Police Station Anantnag (2025)