SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(J&K) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
M. K. HANJURA, J.
Farooq Ahmad Dar - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and others - Respondents
Pet. u/s 561-A No.176 of 2017
Decided on : 28-06-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG.

The Court emphasized the need for a preliminary inquiry in cases involving allegations of corruption and abuse of official position. It also highlighted the power of the Court to quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or if the ends of justice require the proceeding to be quashed.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Official Position - Sections 120-B & 409 of RPC, Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to quash the FIR registered against him and others for offences under Sections 120-B & 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner alleges malafide intentions and vested interests behind the action taken against him by the police authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the registration of the FIR was a calculated move devised to take revenge under a well-knit design and was liable to be struck down. The Court also noted that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any offence and that the allegations were baseless.

Issues: The issues included the abuse of official position, malafide intentions, and the timing of the FIR registration after a delay of more than three years.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the power to quash a proceeding under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised if allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or if the ends of justice require the proceeding to be quashed. The Court also cited the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases, especially those involving allegations of corruption.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and proceedings conducted in the FIR were quashed as against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner craves the indulgence of this Court in quashing the FIR bearing No.22/2017 registered against him and others on 25.07.2017 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch Kashmir, for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B & 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Before looking into the areas of concern projected by the petitioner in this petition, the contents of the FIR require to be examined and evaluated. The FIR delineates that on 25.07.2017 the authorities of Crime Branch Kashmir received a communication No.47/GAZ/Civ/PHQ/2017-6791-93 dated 17.07.2017 from PHQ, J&K Srinagar, through CHQ, J&K Srinagar vide letter No.CHQ/Est/K-460/18/10738-39 dated 24.07.2017, running under the head “Complaint regarding abuse of official position by the officers of Armed Police, J&K to confer undue benefit”, the details of which are that the matter pertaining to lending of Government premises to a private person for running eatery (food point) allegedly under the so called PPP mode both at Srinagar and Jammu by Armed Police, came under discussion in the Police Headquarters. It has been stated that the perusal of records in this behalf inter-alia reveals that the officers/officials of JKAP 9th Bn. having domain in the capacity of public servants over the property of Lake View, Golf Course-cum-Police Environment and Training Park, Boulevard, Srinagar, have under a well designed criminal conspiracy under the garb of a joint venture rented out the above said property to Hotel Mughal Darbar through its Managing Director, Mr. Farooq Ahmad Dar S/o Mr. Habib-ullah Dar R/o Banderpora Anantnag. The public servants have illegally and dishonestly by abuse of their official position executed an illegal agreement in respect of the above said property in his favour on 19th of May, 2014. The agreement has been executed by officers/officials despite having knowledge that the property belongs to the Government and has been entrusted to them in the capacity of public servants, having no authority/competence to rent out the same without the proper approval of the competent authority that is the Government. Similarly, what gets revealed further is that the officers/officials of IRP 10th Bn having domain over the property of the Government situated at Police Departmental Store, Gulshan Ground, Jammu, have under a well designed criminal conspiracy under the garb of a joint venture rented out some property to Hotel Mughal Darbar through its proprietor, Mr. Farooq Ahmad Dar by executing into writing an illegal agreement dated 14th March, 2014 for jointly operating and managing a restaurant over the premises of the Police Departmental Store, Jammu, under the name and style of M/S Flavours of Kashmir and dishonestly allotted/rented the Govt. land/property to the beneficiary Farooq Ahmad Dar to confer undue benefit upon themselves and the beneficiary. In both the agreements entered into by the respective Commandants of JKAP 9th Bn and IRP 10th Bn, the terms and conditions of the agreements have been structured in such a manner so as to cause undue benefit upon the proprietor of Hotel Mughal Darbar. The correspondence made in this regard by the Armed Police Headquarters reveals that instead of taking the matter/s with the competent authority, i.e., the Government, the subordinate units have been directed to proceed further after observing all necessary codal formalities/financial implications. The acts omitted and committed on behalf of the officials of Armed Police Headquarters and public servants/officers of JKAP 9th Bn and IRP 10th Bn. prima facie constitute the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, 409 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and warrant cognizance. Since the occurrences are distinct, i.e., one at Jammu and the other at Sr






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top