Accused Has Right To Voluntarily Undergo Narco-Analysis Test Subject To Court's Permission: Supreme Court

Introduction

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has recently delivered a milestone judgment in the case of Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors. v. UT of J&K (2025) on complex domains of legal process and judicial jurisdiction. The case is a milestone point of reference to understand the problematic intersections of court orders, legal exceptions, and abuse of legal process in the Indian judiciary.

The case particularly addresses application of General Exceptions in IPC in criminal cases and whether there is a necessity to wait for the accused to bring forward evidence in order to fall within these exceptions where facts are already determined from the complaint. It also addresses issues concerning procedure of complaint filling, FIR registration, and abuse of process where there is no proper evidence or procedural adherence.

Let us take the example of Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors. v. UT of J&K (2025) and attempt to find its overall implications for India's judicial landscape.

Judicial scrutiny over Narco-Analysis Test procedures and FIR filing compliance under CrPC Sections 154 and 156(3), as emphasized by the Supreme Court in 2025.

Background of Syed Muiz Qadri Case

The case was against a trust by the name of Darul Arifa Hazrat Khadijatul Qubra (RA) and was situated at Tasspora Gadool, Tehsil Kokernag, District Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir. The trust was imparting religious and technical education to orphan girls with hostel and mess facilities. The property was constructed on proprietary land, the adjacent state land legally vested in the name of the trust on payment of Rs.70,000 under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, otherwise known as the ROSHNI Act.

But subsequently, the ROSHNI Act was withdrawn, and the issue of recovery of the state land began after the S.K. Bhalla case, when the Division Bench of the High Court directed the instructions of recovery of the state land. The local revenue authorities began encroaching into the trust property, and the conflict between the trust management and the authorities increased.

Administrative Actions and Charges of Misbehavior

The crisis commenced with the Tehsildar of Kokernag serving an eviction notice on 9th March 2022, which ordered the trust to vacate encroachments perceived by the trust. Revenue staff arrived at the site to pull out state land and remove encroachments on 11th March 2022. The trust management resisted the eviction process, and it escalated on the 11th, leading to the serving of another notice for obstructing official work.

On 25th March 2022, once again a notice was issued, requesting the trust to leave the building in seven days. After that, the trust filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), reporting that on 11th March 2022, the petitioners had entered the trust premises by force, shutting kitchen and dining facilities, and scaring the female students residing there. The aggrieved parties also complained that the authorities had not responded suitably once they were brought to notice of the incident. Magistrate's Order and Challenge in High Court

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vailoo, directed the Police Station Kokernag to report an FIR in the case of the petitioners, which was subsequently registered as FIR No. 55/2022 under Sections 447, 354, and 506 IPC. The aforementioned FIR led to further judicial proceedings, and the petitioners had moved a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Magistrate as well as the FIR.

The petitioners also alleged that they were doing only their official work in line with the direction of the court and the dictates laid down in the S.K. Bhalla case. They also alleged that what they did was lawful and based on the enforcement of official obligations.

Court's Observations on Procedural Requirements Of  Narco-Analysis Test:

The Court made detailed procedural observations in the context of the Narco-Analysis Test, reinforcing that such invasive methods must follow legal and constitutional safeguards.

It first referenced Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), clarifying that before filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the complainant must exhaust preliminary steps—i.e., submitting a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or the Station House Officer (SHO).

The Court referred to the precedent set in Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), which mandates strict procedural compliance. In that case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit, explicitly stating that steps under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) were duly followed.

In this particular case, the complainant failed to disclose crucial details about the police department against which the complaint was directed. There was no documentary proof showing the complaint had followed routine protocol or that procedural prerequisites had been met.

The Court cautioned that Section 156(3) should not be misused as a shortcut to bypass standard procedures for lodging a cognizable offence. Instead, it is meant as a vigilance safeguard, activated only when prior remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) have failed.

Moreover, the absence of an affidavit and the vague, non-specific nature of the complaint raised doubts about its credibility. The Court considered these shortcomings a deliberate circumvention of due process, amounting to misuse of judicial remedies. As such, it justified judicial intervention to uphold procedural integrity.

General Exceptions under IPC:

The most important component of the judgment was the application of General Exceptions under the IPC, i.e., Section 78 of IPC, which states that anything done in good faith in following a court order or decree is not an offence although the court itself will not be competent if the person is in good faith.

The petitioners had contended that whatever they were doing was in terms of the General Exceptions as they were doing it in obedience to the order of the court in the S.K. Bhalla case. The court went further to hold that even if the allegations made were true, they did not amount to an offence as the petitioners were doing so in discharge of public duties by order of court.

The court felt that if facts are clear that the case falls under General Exceptions of IPC, the accused is not needed to produce evidence in defense. The court also felt that the petitioners were entitled to Section 78 IPC, and therefore the proceeding against the petitioners was unjustified.

This acknowledgment of Section 78 IPC not only set definiteness on the legal stance but also reaffirmed an essential protection for public servants performing their duties. The court underscored that judicial officers and public officers should not be hesitant or act with unjustifiable apprehension in executing orders of the court, particularly when there is a question of public interest or recovery of land. Such protection by law guarantees that bona fide acts performed in good faith in the course of discharge of official duties do not attract personal liability. Reservation of General Exceptions under IPC in this regard is an effective deterrent against frivolous litigations employed to deflect legitimate state action.

Allegations and Abuse of Process

The court considered the character of the charges that were charges filed omnibus for outraging modesty and harassment of students. The court was of the view that these were omnibus and too vague in terms, with no identification of the victims and the character of the acts perpetrated. Citing well-settled principles of law, the court ruled that such omnibus and generalized charges could not form the foundation for the filing of criminal charges against a person.

The court also adjudicated that the filing of the FIR appeared to be a thought-out move on the part of the complainant to put an end to the discharge of legal obligations by the petitioners. The court added that the filing of the complaint and FIR was very likely triggered by a motive to delay the eviction process and hinder the lawful reclamation of state property.

The court noted that to proceed further with the legal proceedings in such a matter would discourage public functionaries from pursuing their lawful duties. The case therefore equated to abuse of legal process worthy of intervention under Section 482 of CrPC for the enforcement of the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of legal proceedings.

Final Determination

After examination of the facts and legal justification, the court cancelled the order of the Magistrate issued on 25th March 2022 and FIR No. 55/2022. The court declared both the order and FIR as legally untenable on the basis of procedural irregularities and lack of any cognizable allegations to initiate criminal proceedings.

In exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, the court held that the proceedings of the case would constitute an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings so that the General Exceptions of IPC were enforced accordingly.

Conclusion: Legal Precedents and General Exceptions Under IPC

The decision of Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors. v. UT of J&K (2025) is also a timely warning that in criminal matters, procedural formalities should be obeyed strictly and provisions in law like the General Exceptions under IPC should be applied as per their provisions where the position evidently demands so.

Order of Magistrate and the quashing order of the FIR justifies the will of the court to maintain the non-abuse of the legal process and the sanctity of the public functionary who has the mandate to carry out lawful orders. By emphasizing the working of Section 78 IPC (Section 16 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023), the court strengthened the perception that acts done under orders of the court are safe even if there are subsequent challenges for jurisdiction of the court.

This case also illustrates the general principle that procedure in law has to be applied sensibly and charges, particularly on public people, have to be clear and be backed up by adequate evidence. Since indefinite and vague charges cannot be made the basis for prosecution and abuse of process of law will not be tolerated at all.

In a court setting most commonly bedeviled by procrastination of processes and red tape, the case of Syed Muiz Qadri shines like a beacon of judicial watchfulness and responsibility enforcing the duty of the courts to dispense justice without delay or prejudice.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now