On July 6, 2026, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) Tarun Mahajan of the City Court Srinagar registered a suo motu criminal complaint against SSP Srinagar Dr GV Sundeep Chakravarthy, IPS, for wilfully and repeatedly failing to execute court-issued warrants across three separate cases.
The court invoked Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to initiate proceedings, according to Bar & Bench — marking a sharp judicial rebuke of the senior Indian Police Service officer.
Background: How We Got Here
The immediate trigger was a private complaint titled Ghulam Mohammad Rather vs Ajaz Ahmad Lone, as reported by the Kashmir Observer and Daily Excelsior.
In that case, the court issued an arrest warrant against the accused around March 2026. The SHO of Bandipora Police Station failed to execute the warrant and also failed to appear in court when directed.
- Following the SHO’s non-compliance, the court directed both the SSP and SDPO Bandipora to execute bailable warrants against the SHO himself, as per Bar & Bench.
- When Bandipora police again failed to comply, the court escalated matters by entrusting SSP Srinagar Dr Chakravarthy with executing the warrant against the then-SHO Bandipora under Section 81 of the BNSS, according to the Kashmir Observer.
- The SSP Srinagar also failed to act — and the court noted similar non-compliance by the SSP in two additional cases involving warrants against the SHOs of Rajpora (Pulwama) and Kupwara police stations, as reported by the Kashmir Observer.
This pattern of escalating inaction, spanning three separate cases and multiple police stations across Jammu & Kashmir, ultimately prompted the JMIC to take the extraordinary step of registering a suo motu complaint against the SSP himself.
The Ruling — Key Findings
JMIC Tarun Mahajan held that the SSP’s repeated inaction prima facie amounted to a violation of his statutory duties under Section 24 of the J&K Police Act, 1961 — an offence punishable under Section 29 of the same Act, according to Bar & Bench and the Kashmir Observer.
The court’s language was unsparing. In its order, the JMIC stated: “SSP Srinagar has a habit of sitting over the warrants issued by this court and SSP Srinagar has not only defied the orders of this court once but thrice.”
On the complicity of senior officers shielding the erring SHO, the court observed: “Both these officers are themselves creating hindrance in the administration of justice and instead of executing the warrant against SHO Bandipora are showing full brotherhood for his fraternity member and protecting him with full impunity.”
The JMIC characterised the omissions as carried out “willfully, deliberately & purposely” — and delivered a sweeping assessment of institutional failure: “Above scenario shows that whole police machinery of District Srinagar as well as District Bandipora has been collapsed.”
In terms of directions, the court issued a pre-cognizance notice to Dr Chakravarthy under Section 223(2)(a) of the BNSS, seeking his written explanation, as reported by Bar & Bench.
The court also directed the ADGP/IGP, Kashmir to submit a report under Section 223(2)(b) of the BNSS before the next date of hearing, according to Bar & Bench and the Kashmir Observer.
The proceedings were covered by LiveLaw under the headline: ‘Magnanimity Not Weakness’: Srinagar Court Registers Suo Motu Case Against SSP For Repeated Failure To Execute Court Warrants — reflecting the court’s pointed warning that judicial restraint should not be mistaken for judicial weakness.
Reactions & What’s Next
No formal response from SSP Dr GV Sundeep Chakravarthy or the J&K Police has been reported in the sources available at the time of publication.
The matter has been listed for its next hearing on July 16, 2026, per Bar & Bench and the Kashmir Observer. Dr Chakravarthy is required to submit a written explanation in response to the pre-cognizance notice, while the ADGP/IGP Kashmir must place a report before the court by that date.
The case raises significant questions about institutional accountability of senior police officers to magistrates’ courts under the new BNSS framework — and whether the suo motu route under Section 210(1)(c) will see wider use where warrant execution is repeatedly defied.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
Which provision of BNSS did the Srinagar court invoke to register the suo motu case against SSP Srinagar?
JMIC Tarun Mahajan invoked Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to initiate suo motu criminal proceedings against SSP Srinagar Dr GV Sundeep Chakravarthy, according to Bar & Bench and the Kashmir Observer.
What directions did the Srinagar court issue after registering the suo motu complaint?
The court issued a pre-cognizance notice to SSP Srinagar under Section 223(2)(a) of the BNSS seeking his written explanation, and separately directed the ADGP/IGP Kashmir to submit a report under Section 223(2)(b) of the BNSS before the next hearing on July 16, 2026, as reported by Bar & Bench.
Under which provisions of the J&K Police Act, 1961 did the court find the SSP prima facie liable?
The court held that the SSP’s repeated non-execution of warrants prima facie amounted to a violation of his duties under Section 24 of the J&K Police Act, 1961, which is punishable under Section 29 of the same Act, per Bar & Bench and the Kashmir Observer.
In how many cases did the court find the SSP Srinagar had failed to execute warrants?
The court identified at least three cases in which SSP Srinagar allegedly failed to execute warrants — involving the SHOs of Bandipora, Rajpora (Pulwama), and Kupwara police stations, according to the Kashmir Observer.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
