Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 96 (JK)

Ramesh Kumar Bhat v. UT of J&K

2022-03-09

SANJAY DHAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged FIR No. 269/2020 for offences under Section 419, 342, 506 and 170 IPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. 2. The facts emerging from the record are that on 12.10.2020, Police Station, Bahu Forte, Jammu, received a representation addressed to Lieutenant Governor from complainant (respondent No. 2). In the said representation the complainant, who happens to be a Junior Scale KAS Officer, submitted that on 18th September, 2020, she got a phone call from Cell Phone No. 7006085519 at around 11.45 A.M. and the caller claimed that he is from Anti-corruption Bureau and that he has been assigned the task of enquiring into various charges of corruption against the complainant. It was further submitted in the representation that the caller asked the complainant to meet him outside the office of Anti-corruption Bureau behind Civil Secretariat, Jammu. The complainant narrated this story to two of her colleagues and one of them accompanied her. When she reached the designated place, the caller asked the complainant to meet him in the office of Election Commission at Bahu Plaza, Jammu. Finally, the complainant met the caller in an office room at Nirvachan Bhawan, Jammu. The person, who had called the complainant, offered her tea but she refused and thereafter the person started making enquiries from her for about one hour. The enquiries, according to the complainant, related to allotment of flats to migrants, distribution of ration coupons, distribution of monthly cash assistance as also regarding her personal details. She was also warned that the charges against her are serious enough to ruin her career. The person told her that Mr. T.K. Bhat, Relief Commissioner, is his batch mate. The complainant came out of the office after one hour and the person concerned told her that he would be calling her again. The complainant goes on to allege that on the same day, the aforesaid person again called her on her telephone at about 3.30 P.M. to ask about her welfare. After the enquiry, the identity of the caller was revealed as Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bhat (the petitioner herein), who is working as Technical Member of Road Transport Council in the office of the Transport Commissioner and not an officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau. The complainant submits that she narrated the incident to her superior officer, Mr. T.K. Bhat. After the enquiry, the identity of the caller was revealed as Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bhat (the petitioner herein), who is working as Technical Member of Road Transport Council in the office of the Transport Commissioner and not an officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau. The complainant submits that she narrated the incident to her superior officer, Mr. T.K. Bhat. The complainant goes on to submit that she also narrated the incident to the Secretary, Mr. Simrandeep Singh, who assured redressal of her grievance. The complainant has also expressed her dismay about her frequent transfers and sought thorough investigation into the matter so as to prevent harassment to her. 3. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint from the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the police registered the impugned FIR and started investigation of the case. 4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that before lodging the FIR, no preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter; that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence, much less the offences punishable under Section 419, 342, 506 and 170 IPC; that the impugned FIR is a result of mala-fides and pure non-application of mind because respondent No. 2, according to the petitioner, is trying to divert attention from her alleged illegal and corrupt practices and that impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed objections/status report on 20.05.2021. In the status report it has been submitted that investigation of the case is in progress and from the statement of the complainant and the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, offences under Section 419, 506 and 170 IPC are made out against the petitioner. 6. During the pendency of the petition, the investigation has been concluded by respondent No. 1 and only final report remains to be filed before the competent court after obtaining requisite approvals. Having regard to this fact, the Case Diary was summoned and the same has been received. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Case Diary. 8. The allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner, in short, are that the petitioner by impersonating himself as an officer of Anti-corruption Bureau called the complainant to a particular location in connection with holding an enquiry against her regarding allegations of corruption. 8. The allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner, in short, are that the petitioner by impersonating himself as an officer of Anti-corruption Bureau called the complainant to a particular location in connection with holding an enquiry against her regarding allegations of corruption. It appears from the statement of the complainant recorded during the investigation of the case that she has reiterated and reaffirmed her allegations against the petitioner. However, the investigating agency has, during the investigation of the case, recorded the statements of other witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and it has also collected the material in the shape of call data record of phone numbers of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, summoned the entry register of the complex in which the petitioner had allegedly called the respondent No. 2. 9. It was found by the investigating agency that allegations made by the complainant in her complaint and her statement recorded during investigation of the case do not find support from the other material assembled during the investigation of the case. According to the investigating agency, no direct or circumstantial evidence supporting the case of complainant could be found. The only two witnesses who deposed in favour of complainant are her two colleagues, whose knowledge about the incident is hearsay and hence inadmissible in evidence. The security personnel, who were posted at the relevant time in the complex where incident is alleged to have occurred, have not confirmed the presence of respondent No. 2 in the complex nor there is any entry in the entry register to this effect. The person in whose office the incident is alleged to have taken place at Nirvachan Sadan on the relevant day has also not deposed about the presence of complainant in the said room. The investigating agency has further found that there is considerable delay in lodging of the report, inasmuch as the incident has allegedly taken place on 18.09.2020 whereas the report has been lodged on 12.10.2020 and during investigation no reason, much less a plausible reason, for not lodging the FIR within a reasonable time, was found by the investigating agency, which according to it is fatal to the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that the complainant happens to be an Administrative Officer who is expected to know the law. 10. 10. In the face of the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency, which is based upon the material assembled during investigation of the case, the question arises as to whether this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be within its powers to quash the criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations made in the complaint supported by the statement of the complainant made during the investigation of the case disclose commission of offences. 11. In a recent case titled Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 (2) JKJ 28 (SC) (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2022 decided on February 10, 2022) the Supreme Court has, after noticing the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1918 : 2021 (2) JKJ 371 (SC), observed that when the material collected in support of the allegations made in a complaint or FIR do not support the said allegation, continuance of criminal proceedings would be a clear abuse of process of law. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under: “19. Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged. 20. 20. In the given circumstances and going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant which has been completely overlooked by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed at her instance under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 12. From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that it is not only the allegations made in the complaint but it is also the material that has been assembled by the investigating agency in support of those allegations which is required to be analysed by the Court while deciding as to whether proceedings in a particular case deserve to be quashed. It is true that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not embark upon an enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint but then when full-fledged investigation has taken place and the material collected during investigation of the case do not support the allegations made in the complaint/FIR, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 13. The present case is not the one where if proceedings are quashed, the same would amount to stifling the prosecution but it is a case where after full-fledged investigation of the impugned FIR, the investigating agency has come to a conclusion that allegations made in the said FIR are not substantiated by the material assembled during the investigation. The continuance of criminal proceedings in such a case would amount to abuse of process of law. Thus, the proceedings in the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed. 15. Case Dairy be returned to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.