Court Emphasizes Judicial Restraint in Quashing FIRs, Highlights Disproportionate Assets Accumulation
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Parihar, has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR filed against Abdul Majid Bhat, a public servant accused of accumulating disproportionate assets during his tenure as Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The case, registered under FIR No. 25/2018, falls under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, and the court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in quashing FIRs at the initial investigation stage unless the allegations are patently absurd or malicious.
The court's decision was based on the investigation's findings, which disclosed assets amounting to 267.88% more than Bhat's known sources of income. These assets included significant amounts of cash, gold ornaments, and several immovable properties allegedly acquired through misuse of his official position from 2008 to 2018. The investigation, led by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), was initiated following a credible source report and secret verification, which the court found lawful and sufficient to justify further inquiry.
Despite Bhat's claims that the assets in question were acquired legally and that the FIR was registered without proper preliminary inquiry, the court noted that the investigation had adhered to due process. Search warrants obtained from the Special Court led to the recovery of substantial incriminating material, further reinforcing the allegations of corruption and misconduct.
The court underscored that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for the quashing of FIRs, must be exercised cautiously. It reiterated that at the investigation stage, courts should not interfere unless no cognizable offence is disclosed or the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides.
Furthermore, the court dismissed Bhat's reliance on alleged procedural violations, such as the non-compliance with Rule 23 of the J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013, clarifying that the rule was inapplicable as the FIR was based on a source report. The petitioner's premature retirement and the readiness of the charge-sheet for presentation were noted, with the court directing the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's stance on tackling corruption within public services and highlights the importance of allowing investigations to proceed when prima facie evidence of wrongdoing exists. The case will now continue in trial court, where the evidence will be further scrutinized.
Bottom Line:
Corruption investigation against public servant under J&K Prevention of Corruption Act - FIR registered based on source report indicating disproportionate assets - Secret verification conducted prior to FIR registration found sufficient prima facie evidence - Court emphasizes judicial restraint in quashing FIRs at initial stage unless allegations are patently absurd or malicious.
Statutory provision(s): J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482, J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013 Rule 23, Public Men and Public Servants (Declaration of Assets and Other Provisions) Act Sections 12 and 14.
