Preliminary Verification Closure Not Equivalent To Closure Report Under CrPC: J&K&L High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

The Court clarified that a preliminary verification closure measure only requires supplying brief reasons to the informant and does not amount to a closure report under Section 154/170 Cr.PC nor does it have the sanctity of a judicial order.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.PC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 09/2015 registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing the petition, observed,

“... the High Court cannot interfere under its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR, merely because a preliminary verification had earlier recommended closure, when subsequent material collected during inquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence.”

Background:

The petitioner, Aijaz Hussain Sahaf, was serving as an Executive Engineer. A complaint was received by the Crime Branch, Kashmir alleging that he had tampered with his date of birth in his service book. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Crime Branch which was closed as “not proved.” However, the SSP, Crime Branch, Kashmir addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer recommending a departmental inquiry.

Pursuant to directions, a departmental inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was directed to record his actual date of birth on the first page of his service book. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, which permitted the competent authority to hold a proper inquiry. On conclusion of the inquiry, it was established that the petitioner had tampered with his service records.

The Under Secretary to Government, subsequently referred the matter to the Crime Branch for appropriate action, leading to registration of the impugned FIR.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on grounds including that the FIR was motivated, that the Under Secretary had no locus standi to lodge the FIR, that the High Court had quashed his compulsory retirement order, and that the Crime Branch had earlier closed the preliminary inquiry.

Court's Observation:

The Court first clarified that the initial preliminary verification conducted by the Crime Branch was closed, but the matter was simultaneously recommended for a departmental inquiry. The Court held that the plea that once a preliminary inquiry was closed, a second FIR could not be registered was totally misplaced. The Court observed,

“The preliminary verification report is non-conclusive material, therefore, it cannot prevent registration of FIR, if cognizable offences are made out on fresh/relevant material. The scope of preliminary verification is only to check whether a cognizable offence is prima-facie disclosed and not to finally adjudicate that allegations either 'proved' or 'not proved'. Therefore, once on the basis of material collected during inquiry, the commission of cognizable offence is disclosed, registration of FIR is the mandate of law.”

Perusal of the case diary revealed that during investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the matriculation certificate, result registers, admission and withdrawal registers, National High School records, and the service book of the petitioner. A letter from the Joint Secretary (Verification), J&K Board of School Education (BOSE), authenticated that the petitioner's date of birth was 28 August 1955.

The most crucial piece of evidence was the FSL report, which opined that the original date of birth of the petitioner was 28 August 1955 and not 28 August 1958, thereby confirming tampering in the service record. Additionally, material regarding the petitioner's brother showed that the petitioner was only four months younger than his elder brother, further corroborating the tampering.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini and ors. (AIR 2025 SC 4186), which held that where allegations pertain to abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office, such actions fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and the police is duty bound under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR without any delay.

The Court noted that the petitioner had sought to take advantage of the findings in writ petitions, where his compulsory retirement was quashed. However, the Court observed that said judgment was set aside in Letters Patent Appeal. Even otherwise, the Court held,

“.. exoneration in disciplinary proceedings which are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, does not ipso facto entitle a person to claim quashing of criminal proceedings, which require proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court further held that the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction is not supposed to conduct a mini trial or re-weigh the evidence collected during investigation, as that falls within the domain of the trial court. The Court observed that the material collected during investigation prima-facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences, and therefore, no case was made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

In view of these findings the Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit, vacated the interim directions, and permitted the Investigating Officer to proceed in accordance with law.

Case Title: Aijaz Hussain Sahaf v. State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment