Point of Law: Illegal gratification - FIR Quashed - Saving inherit powers of High Court - Power to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C should be resorted to in rearest of rare cases, has illustrated categories where this power can be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioner has challenged FIR No.05/2016 for offences under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) and Section 4A of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and 109 RPC registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization Kashmir, Srinagar.

2) The facts emanating from the record are that pursuant to e-tendering, the work pertaining to construction and maintenance of road from Salamabad to Gohalan, Stage-II, Phase-VI, Package No.JK00-57, was allotted by Chief Engineer, PMGSY (JKRRDA), Srinagar, to M/S Jehangir Steel Industries, Awantipora, Kashmir, through its proprietor Jahangir Ahmad Bhat, who happens to be the complainant in the instant case. The work was allotted to the aforesaid complainant in terms of the letter of acceptance bearing No.CE/PMGSY/1886-92 dated 24.06.2010. As per the terms of the agreement pertaining to the allotment of contract, the work was to be executed and completed within a period of 18 months.

3) It appears that the work could not be completed by the contractor i.e., the complainant, within the stipulated time and he could not do so even within the extended period of time. There were contradictory versions with regard to reasons for non-completion of work. The complainant alleged that there was some dispute going on between the land owners and the Government with regard to payment of compensation which prevented him from completing the work within the stipulated period whereas the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer claimed that the delay in progress of work is wholly attributable to the complainant-contractor.

4) Ultimately, the contract came to be cancelled/terminated vide communication No.CE/PMGSY/DB/K/5216-19 dated 06.08.2012 of the Chief Engineer, PMGSY(JKRRDA), Kashmir. This was done on the basis of recommendations of the Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Division Uri-the petitioner herein, who happens to be the accused in the impugned FIR. The termination order and the subsequent allotment of balance work was challenged by the complainant by way of a writ petition bearing OWP No.365/2013, which is stated to be pending before this Court.

5) On 21.12.2013, a written complaint came to be filed by the complainant, on the basis of which preliminary verification was undertaken by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. In the said complaint, the complainant while narrating that he had been awarded the aforesaid work of construction of road, claimed that the work could not be completed within the stipulated time because execution of the work was resisted by the local residents and landlords as they had not received the adequate compensation from the Government. He also stated in the complaint that his contract was terminated at the instance of the Executive Engineer, the accused/petitioner herein, who had also received a sum of Rs.90,000/ as illegal gratification from him. It was alleged that the contract of the complainant was terminated due to the reason that he could not fulfill the illegal and unlawful demands of the accused. The amount of Rs.90,000/, as per the complainant, had been paid by him by transferring the same in the bank account of one Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili, a close friend of the accused/petitioner. This is alleged to have been done by the complainant on 25.04.2011. The complainant is further alleged to have paid certain other amounts to the accused/petitioner in cash from time to time.

6) The Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, after conducting preliminary verification into the allegations made in the complaint came to the conclusion that the offences under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2), 4A of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and 109 RPC, are disclosed against the petitioner/accused and, accordingly, the impugned FIR was registered.

7) The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the contents of the same do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner; that the allegati