IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHAN LAL, J.
Gian Chand Khajuria, S/o. Puran Chand Khajuria - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu & Ors. - Respondents
CRM(M) No. 703 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2023
Section 482 Cr.PC - Quashment of FIR - Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt 2006 - Sections 5(1)(c)(d) r/w Section 5(2) - Sections 420, 120-B RPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, sought the quashment of FIR No. 28 of 2017 registered against him for alleged offences under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and RPC. The petitioner argued that the allegations against him were unrelated to his tenure as Incharge TSO Hiranagar and lacked factual supporting material.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were inherently improbable and lacked factual supporting material. It held that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence justifying an investigation, and therefore, quashed the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's criminal liability for alleged offences during his tenure as Incharge TSO Hiranagar and the sufficiency of factual supporting material in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various judgments to determine that the allegations were inherently improbable and lacked factual supporting material, thus not constituting a cognizable offence. It emphasized that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR No.28/2017 registered against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner by the medium of instant petition filed under section 561-A [now Section 482 Cr.PC] of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the "Code") has sought the quashment of FIR No. 28 of 2017 registered with Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(c)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt 2006 r/w Sections 420, 120-B RPC, on the following grounds:-
(ii) that during the period w.e.f. 11.05.2013 to 12.02.2014 (for total period of 9 months) petitioner remained posted as I/C Tehsil Supply Officer (TSO) Hiranagar in terms of order No.86 DCAPDJ of 2013 dated 11.05.2013, whereafter, he was transferred out of Hiranagar by virtue of order No.58-DCAPDJ of 2013 dated 13.02.2014 issued by Director of Consumer Safaris and Public Distribution Jammu;
(iii) that the petitioner was to be considered for substantive promotion to the post of head assistant which is equivalent to Tehsil Supply Officer (TSO), and while the matter was been considered an FIR bearing No. 28 of 2017 dated 02.08.2017 came to be registered against him in Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(c)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt 2006 r/w Sections 420, 120-B RPC;
(iv) that perusal of FIR impugned shows that the investigating agency claims to have conducted a preliminary investigation on written complaint lodged by one Sh. R.S. Sharma, the nature of allegations depicted in the FIR are, (a) that one Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma is running a Kerosene Oil Depot illegally without any permission and in connivance with the officers/officials of CAPD Department, (b) that licence of one floor mill bearing license No. KTH/Rice/Mill/84/59 dated 18.04.1984 in the name of one Sh. Bishan Dass is being continuously functioning even after the death of said Bishan Dass in the year 2007, (c) that wife of Bishan Dass is having AAY Ration Card (Antodya Ann Yojna) which includes name of her son Omkar Sharma in the said AAY Ration Card & (d) that the different dealers from time to time in connivance with officials of CAPD Department have misappropriated/black marketed the Govt. Ration ;
(v) that so far the allegation of running of a Kerosene Oil Depot by one Dharam Pal Sharma is concerned, petitioner is not connected with the said allegations as the license for running the said depot was issued in the year 2000 by the then Director CAPD Department, petitioner was posted as incharge TSO Hiranagar in the year 2013 for a period of only 9 months and therefore cannot be saddled with any criminal liability for the license which was issued much prior to his posting in the year 2000 by the then Director;
(vi) that the allegations pertaining to renewal of license of Floor Mill in favour of one Bishan Dass has been issued in the year 1984 under license No. KTH/Rice/Mill/84/59 dated 18.04.1984, petitioner is not at all connected with the issuance of said license, the said license was renewed on 03.02.2012 and thereafter it was renewed in the year December 2015 meaning thereby that during the period w.e.f. 11.05.2013 to 12.02.2014 when petitioner was incharge TSO Hiranagar the said license was not renewed by him therefore the allegations against the petitioner are totally absurd and motivated by extraneous considerations;
(vii) that the next allegation levelled in the FIR is that APL/BPL/AAY lists were prepared by Halqa Panchayat and the same were entertained by TSO for the purpose of issuance of Ration Card without getting any investigation from the revenue authorities
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and there must be factual supporting material in the FIR to fasten the accused with criminal liability.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
High Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC only in exceptional circumstances, with a prima facie case against accused warranting investigation.
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.