The court emphasized that FIR registration must not happen without jurisdiction, deeming the original complaint as an abuse of process due to lack of standing and the excessive time elapsed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashment of Order dated 23rd October 2019, passed by Special Judge (Anticorruption,) Jammu, for short “court below”, in File no.03/2019/Ikhtami in FIR no.09/2014, on the grounds made mention of therein. They also pray to declare FIR no.09/2014 police station VOJ (now Anticorruption Bureau) Jammu as illegal and abuse of powers of investigation since neither respondent no.2 could be accepted to be a person competent or aggrieved of lodging complaint nor could such a complaint after a delay of more than 18 years have been entertained.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the record on the file and considered the matter.

3. FIR no.09/2014 under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K P. C. Act and Section 120-B RPC, on a complaint of one Prof. S.K. Bhalla, who is respondent no.2 herein, was lodged by the then police station Vigilance Organization, Jammu, now Anticorruption Bureau (ACB). Consequently, investigation was set in motion by ACB. This concluded in closure of the case as not proved. Report to this extent was filed. However, court below held findings of investigating agency devoid of any reason and did not accept it. The court below returned the final report, directing SSP ACB Jammu to carry out further investigation.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, at the first instance, has detailed out factual background of the case and then stated that impugned order is a complete misreading of final investigation report as also misunderstanding of law and misreading its powers which are available to the court of Magistrate under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He would say that plain reading of final report would show that ACB had thoroughly investigated every angle of allegation levelled in the complaint, which became subject of investigation because of registration of FIR. The facts had been noticed by investigating agency, which pertain to rights of tenants under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, (for short the “Act”) correction of Girdawari, attestation of mutations under Section 4, 7&8 of the Act.

It is vehemently stated by learned senior counsel that the court below has confused the entire issue by reading into the Act and that Section 28 A of the Act being one which was applicable to allegations made in the complaint and that the court below did not even notice the fact that investigating agency had referred to Section 28 -A of the Act and after marshalling facts found that since mutations, both under Section 4&8, were attested in favour of Anant Ram son of Divya, well before Section 28 A got engrafted in the Act in the year 1989 and as Anant Ram got proprietary rights under the Act under Section 8 in the year 1982, he was, thus, competent to sell the property which he had done in the year 1982 itself. There was, thus, no question of any ban in existence in 1982 against rights of a tenant who got ownership rights under Section 8 of the Act up to 1989.

As said by learned senior counsel that court below did not appreciate distinction between Section 28 as was existing in the Act when Anant Ram was conferred with rights under Sections 4&8 and his transferring the land in favour of third parties. After saying this, he would contend that court below has proceeded on a presumption as if Anant Ram was only a prospective owner, i.e., Mutation under Sectio