Bland Allegation Of Connivance: Supreme Court Upholds Order Quashing FIR Against Ex-MD Of J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation For Corruption
The Apex Court was considering a Special Leave Petition against the order quashing the F.I.R. registered against the ex- Managing Director Brij Bhushan.
The Supreme Court upheld an order quashing a criminal case of illegal land allotment registered against the former MD of J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Brij Bhushan, after finding that only a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State was made against him.
The Apex Court was considering a Special Leave Petition against the order quashing the FIR registered under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the year 2021 against the ex- Managing Director.
The Single Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “In any event, we do not see any allegation against the respondent herein under the provisions on which the F.I.R. has been registered but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State. There is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party respondent herein.”
AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan represented the Appellant while Advocate Nonu Khera represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation (JKCHC) acquired land in the year 1989 for Rs 31,500, where various blocks were developed and allotted to its members on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. In the year 2021, an FIR was registered alleging that the power of attorney holder landlords of the subject land had colluded with the Tehsildar and together with the respondent who was the Managing Director of the JKCHC obtained ‘fard Intikhab’ leading to the transfer of the lands in the name of the JKCHC.
It was alleged in the FIR that this act of the accused had conferred huge undue benefits to the JKCHC and its members. The respondent successfully filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned order quashing the F.I.R. came to be passed. The SLP filed before the Apex Court challenged such quashing.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Single Judge of the High Court considered Section 29 of the Act which saves any officer or authority in respect of anything which is done in good faith under the Agrarian Reforms Act.
“We will not go into whether criminal proceedings would lie under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the I.P.C. as against the officers, since they are not before us. We also do not agree with the learned Single Judge that no criminal proceedings will lie, for reason only of the statute having not provided it; since the allegation of corruption and criminal breach of trust, if substantiated, could lead to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC”, the Bench said.
The Apex Court explained that the question of indemnity under Section 29, which operates only if the acts complained of are done in good faith, would have to be independently agitated by the officer of the State who has been arrayed as accused. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Respondent was the Managing Director of the Cooperative Society which obtained the lands after verification of the rights on the land from the Collector of the District. The allottees of such lands had already raised a residential colony in the location. Moreover, no action under Section 28- A had been taken by the State to repossess the lands.
In light of the fact that only a bland allegation of connivance was made against him and no personal benefit was alleged to have accrued to him, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Cause Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Brij Bhushan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 461)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar
Respondent: Advocates Nonu Khera, Sanjay Chakraborty, AOR Mohan Lal Sharma
