“Interference Would Amount To Usurping Statutory Domain Of Investigating Agency”: J&K And Ladakh High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former ARTO
The High Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that where an investigation has disclosed prima facie material and has substantially concluded, interference under Section 482 CrPC would amount to encroaching upon the statutory domain of the investigating agency.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered against a former Assistant Regional Transport Officer, holding that interefering at the stage of investigations would amount to usurping the domain of the investigating agency.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashment of FIR registered by the Vigilance Organisation, Kashmir, alleging accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income during the petitioner’s tenure as a public servant.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar, while stating that "...given the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, there are sufficient grounds to suspect commission of offences by the petitioner", further observed that "interference at this stage would amount to usurping the statutory domain of the investigating agency”.
Advocate Sharaf Wani appeared for the petitioner, while Mohsin Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Shopian, challenged the registration of an FIR under Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that the accusations were vague, unsubstantiated, and initiated in violation of statutory procedure.
It was contended that the petitioner had satisfactorily explained the source and ownership of the properties attributed to him, that several seized assets belonged to family members or third parties, and that no illegal licences or registrations issued by him had been identified. The petitioner further alleged non-compliance with Rule 23 of the J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013, and asserted mala fide intent behind the investigation.
The respondents contended that the FIR was registered on the basis of a reliable source report followed by secret verification, which disclosed possession of assets disproportionate to income. It was submitted that searches were conducted pursuant to court-issued warrants, substantial recoveries were effected, and the investigation had since concluded with the charge sheet ready for presentation.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the scope of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and reiterated that such power is to be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption against public servants.
The Court noted that the FIR was registered on the basis of a source report, followed by secret verification and court-sanctioned searches, which resulted in the recovery of cash, gold, and documents, and attachment of certain assets. It was observed that several properties initially included in the investigation were later excluded, demonstrating that the investigation was not conducted mechanically or with a predetermined bias.
Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, Bhajan Lal, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that at this stage, it could not assess the sufficiency or probative value of evidence or conduct a mini-trial.
The Court rejected the contention that Rule 23 of the Vigilance Rules had been violated, holding that the FIR was validly registered on the basis of a source report and that the Vigilance Organisation was a designated police station empowered to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It was observed that the investigation had substantially concluded that prima facie material disclosed commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied statutes, and that rival factual claims raised by the petitioner could only be adjudicated at trial.
Conclusion
Holding that the case did not fall within any of the categories warranting quashment laid down in Bhajan Lal, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition.
The Court directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law and present the charge-sheet before the competent court. Any interim protection earlier granted was vacated, with the clarification that observations made would not prejudice the trial.
Cause Title: Abdul Majid Bhat v. Commissioner Secretary to the Government, GAD & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: Sharaf Wani, Advocate; Shmad Basaud, Advocate
Respondents: Mohsin Qadri, Senior AAG; Maha Majeed, Advocate