The Court established that the investigation of a case cannot be aborted mid-way if the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of offences, and the benefit sought from a separate order was misdirected.

1. In this petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners beseech and seek the quashing of FIR No. 02/2014, registered against them at Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

2. Before examining and evaluating the merits of the petition of the petitioners, it will be appropriate to state that the FIR delineates that the petitioners, in collusion with other Officials/Officers of the Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, raised a huge residential building compromising three storeyes, numbered 292-A, situated opposite to Peerbaba, Apsra Road, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, when, in fact, the permission granted vide No. 536/BS/2009 dated 31st of July, 2009, was for residential purposes, but they, under its garb, raised a huge construction, both in terms of area and height, with huge basement meant for commercial purpose in violation of the sanctioned plan, master plan, zoning regulations and building bye-laws. No timely action, under the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “COBO Act”) and the rules thereof, was taken by the Officers/Officials of the Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, who, maintained a deep silence till such time that the building was complete. The Officials/Officers of the Enforcement Wing of the Jammu Municipal Corporation facilitated the beneficiaries in raising the construction by giving them sufficient time and not taking any timely action of stopping/dismantling the said construction. The Officials/Officers of the Enforcement Wing and the Joint Commissioner (Administration), in the notices under Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the COBO Act dated 14th of August, 2012 and 17th of December, 2012, respectively, issued to the beneficiaries, deliberately and dishonestly, concealed the actual violation, did not mention so in the notices and omitted to show the violation committed by the beneficiaries in terms of floor area, ratio and height. They also ignored the violations made in terms of setbacks and the change of land use from the residential to a commercial one. They also facilitated the beneficiaries in getting the non-compoundable violations settled by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”). It is further stated that by conducting themselves in the manner, detailed above, the Officials/Officers of the Municipal Corporation, Jammu, misused their official position and they, in league with the beneficiaries, conferred undue benefit upon them by deliberately and dishonestly facilitating them to raise a three-storeyed commercial complex with the basement. On these set of facts, the case aforementioned was registered against the petitioners with which the investigation ensued.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR aforesaid, the petitioners have challenged its vires before this Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the impugned FIR and the investigation which is sought to be carried out against the petitioners and the Officials/Officers of the Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, is absolutely illegal on the face of the decision of the learned Tribunal, by which the acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioners were compounded. The investigation of the case carried out by the respondent No.2 is totally vitiated and is liable to be quashed. It is further stated that the petitioners have constructed the building in question for residential purpose, as is permissible under law and the same has not been completed to date. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the Officers/Officials of the Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, are illegal and contrary to the factual and legal position. The petitioners have further pleaded that the impugned FI