When the material collected in support of the allegations made in a complaint or FIR do not support the said allegation, continuance of criminal proceedings would be a clear abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged FIR No. 269/2020 for offences under Section 419, 342, 506 and 170 IPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.

2. The facts emerging from the record are that on 12.10.2020, Police Station, Bahu Forte, Jammu, received a representation addressed to Lieutenant Governor from complainant (respondent No. 2). In the said representation the complainant, who happens to be a Junior Scale KAS Officer, submitted that on 18th September, 2020, she got a phone call from Cell Phone No. 7006085519 at around 11.45 A.M. and the caller claimed that he is from Anti-corruption Bureau and that he has been assigned the task of enquiring into various charges of corruption against the complainant. It was further submitted in the representation that the caller asked the complainant to meet him outside the office of Anti-corruption Bureau behind Civil Secretariat, Jammu. The complainant narrated this story to two of her colleagues and one of them accompanied her. When she reached the designated place, the caller asked the complainant to meet him in the office of Election Commission at Bahu Plaza, Jammu. Finally, the complainant met the caller in an office room at Nirvachan Bhawan, Jammu. The person, who had called the complainant, offered her tea but she refused and thereafter the person started making enquiries from her for about one hour. The enquiries, according to the complainant, related to allotment of flats to migrants, distribution of ration coupons, distribution of monthly cash assistance as also regarding her personal details. She was also warned that the charges against her are serious enough to ruin her career. The person told her that Mr. T.K. Bhat, Relief Commissioner, is his batch mate. The complainant came out of the office after one hour and the person concerned told her that he would be calling her again. The complainant goes on to allege that on the same day, the aforesaid person again called her on her telephone at about 3.30 P.M. to ask about her welfare. After the enquiry, the identity of the caller was revealed as Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bhat (the petitioner herein), who is working as Technical Member of Road Transport Council in the office of the Transport Commissioner and not an officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau. The complainant submits that she narrated the incident to her superior officer, Mr. T.K. Bhat. The complainant goes on to submit that she also narrated the incident to the Secretary, Mr. Simrandeep Singh, who assured redressal of her grievance. The complainant has also expressed her dismay about her frequent transfers and sought thorough investigation into the matter so as to prevent harassment to her.

3. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint from the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the police registered the impugned FIR and started investigation of the case.

4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that before lodging the FIR, no preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter; that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence, much less the offences punishable under Section 419, 342, 506 and 170 IPC; that the impugned FIR is a result of mala-fides and pure non-application of mind because respondent No. 2, according to the petitioner, is trying to divert attention from her alleged illegal and corrupt practices and that impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed objections/status report on 20.05.2021. In the status report it has been submitted that investigation of the case is in progress and from the statement of the complainant and the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, offences under Section 419, 506 and 170 IPC are made out against the petitioner.

6. During the pendency of the petition, the investigation has been concluded by respondent No. 1 and only final report remains to be filed before the competent court after obtaining requisite approvals. Having regard to t