Courts Must Not Stifle Corruption Probes At Threshold: J&K&L High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former ARTO
Reiterating that courts must not stifle corruption investigations at the threshold, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking quashment of an FIR registered against a former Assistant Regional Transport Officer, holding that the record discloses “sufficient grounds to suspect commission of offences” and that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while declining interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held that the allegations and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the petition does not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting quashment.
“.. Given the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, there are sufficient grounds to suspect commission of offences by the petitioner. The Court cannot, in quashment proceedings, assess the probative value or sufficiency of evidence”, the court remarked.
Petitioner was a public servant posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Shopian, when FIR came to be registered against him for offences under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006.
Challenging the FIR on the plea that the allegations were vague, baseless and devoid of material particulars it was contended that mere possession of pecuniary resources does not constitute an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act unless it is established that such possession could not be satisfactorily accounted for. The petitioner further alleged that despite having explained the source and ownership of the assets attributed to him, the respondents had mechanically accused him of possessing disproportionate assets.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of “a credible source report received by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kashmir,” indicating accumulation of assets grossly disproportionate to the petitioner's known sources of income while holding various executive posts in the Motor Vehicles Department.
Detailing the investigative steps, the respondents submitted that search warrants were obtained from the competent court and searches were conducted at six locations, leading to recovery of “₹34,13,300/- in Indian currency, ₹99,000/- in demonetised currency, gold ornaments weighing approximately 548–553 grams, thirteen gold coins, one licensed pistol along with magazines and forty-seven rounds of ammunition.
Turning to the legal position governing quashment, Justice Parihar underscored that the scope of interference by this Court at the stage of investigation or prior to filing of the charge-sheet in such matters is well circumscribed.
Relying on R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, the Court reiterated,
“the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption.”
The High Court also relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Singh, reproducing the Supreme Court's powerful reminder on the menace of corruption, observing,
“Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to malign the polity of a country leading to disastrous consequences.”
Addressing the petitioner's reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the present case does not fall within any of the enumerated categories justifying quashment, noting that where, after registration of the FIR, investigation has proceeded and material has been collected which prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would ordinarily refrain from quashing the proceedings.
The Court also rejected the plea of violation of Rule 23 of the J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013, holding that compliance with Rule 23 was not required since the FIR was registered on the basis of a reliable source report concerning accumulation of disproportionate assets by a public servant. It was further observed that the Vigilance Organization is a designated police station competent to register and investigate cognizable offences under the Act.
Emphasising the limits of inherent jurisdiction, Justice Parihar cautioned that at the stage of quashment, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial. The Court observed that rival claims regarding legality of recoveries, attribution of assets and sufficiency of evidence are matters to be examined during trial.
Concluding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or procedural illegality in registration of the FIR or conduct of investigation and the bench maintained that interference at this stage would amount to usurping the statutory domain of the investigating agency.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed Bhat Vs Commissioner Secretary General Administration Department.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)